In the District Court of the United States, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the United States of America, petitioner, vs. Motion Picture Patents Company, et al., defendants (1913)

Page scan 000205 from In the District Court of the United States, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the United States of America, petitioner, vs. Motion Picture Patents Company, et al., defendants

Record Details:

Title:
In the District Court of the United States, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the United States of America, petitioner, vs. Motion Picture Patents Company, et al., defendants
Date:
1913
Publisher:
New York, Appeal Printing Co.
Volume:
In the District Court of the United States, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the United States of America, petitioner, vs. Motion Picture Patents Company, et al., defendants : record volume 1
Leaf #:
000205
Language:
English
Collection:
Government & Law and Early Cinema
Format:
Periodicals
Contributor:
The Museum of Modern Art Library, New York
Sponsor:
Media History Digital Library
Coordinator:
Media History Digital Library
Description:
These seven volumes contain the testimonies and supporting documents from the U.S. District Court's antitrust lawsuit against the Motion Picture Patents Company (MPPC). Formed in 1908, the MPPC (sometimes referred to asœ"the Edison Trust" or just "the Trust") sought to control the American film industry through pooling patents and demanding that producers and exhibitors acquire licenses to those patents. Independent producers and exhibitors, who refused to license the patents, argued that the MPPC was an unlawful monopoly. In 1912 and 1913, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania heard testimonies from both MPPC members, such as Siegmund Lubin, and "Independents" who later became Hollywood moguls, such as William Fox. Ultimately, in 1915, the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which found the MPPC in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and spelled the end for the already weakening MPPC. -- Eric Hoyt, 2012
Date Added:
September 12, 2024
Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

Opinion on Reissue 12,192. 183 material, and did not regard the film as part of his invention; he looked to the people who made it for that. It seems also that while his original application was filed August 24, 1891, the claims for the film were not made until December 28, 1896, in an amendment filed that day. The conversion of this negative film strip into a positive for use in an exhibiting apparatus was effected by one of the familiar processes of the photographic art. The invention of Edison was exhausted in the construction of the camera which enabled the photographs of moving objects to be taken upon the Eastman film in the distinct, uniform and satisfactory manner justly claimed for them. The pictures are the direct result of the mechanism of the camera with the Eastman film mechanically adapted to, and applied therein. In our opinion, Claim 2 of reissue patent No. 12,192 is unpatentable and void; and the decree must be reversed with costs, and the cause remanded with direction to dismiss the bill. Reversed. Seth Shepard, Chief Justice. (Endorsed:) No. 2100. Chicago Film Exchange, Appellant, v. Motion Picture Patents Company. Opinion of the Court per Mr. Chief Justice Shepard. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia. Filed Dec. 2, 1912. Henry W. Hodges, Clerk. A true copy Attest : [Seal.]| Henry W. Hodges, Clerk of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia. By Mr. Grosvenor: Q. Mr. Marvin, referring to the Pross patent. How many years lias the Biograph Company owned the Pross patent? A. From the time of its issue down to the time of its assignment to the Motion Picture Patents Company.