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 000206 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 #:
000206
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.

184 Harry N. Marvin, Direct Examination. I do not recall the date of the issue of that patent, but I think it was in 1902 or 1904. Q. I have the statement here that was issued March the 10th, 1903. You owned it from about that time until December 18, 1908, when the Patents Company was formed? A. Yes. Q. Was not the first suit you ever brought on that patent in the Spring of 1908, after you had refused to join in with the Edison licensees? A. I think that is true. I think there were no infringements of that patent until about the year 1907. Q. Then who began to infringe that patent in 1907? A. I think the Nicholas Power Company and the Edison Company. Q, Did you have any direct knowledge of the Edison Company infringing that patent? A. The observation of the machines sold by them. Q. In the years 1907 and 1908? A. I can't speak positively about the year 1907. Q. In any event you began no suit, whatever the reason, until after you had refused to join in with the Edison licensees, is that correct? A. Well, the Biograph Company didn't bring any suit under that patent, but the Motion Picture Patents Company — well, hold on, I am wrong about that. Yes, I think the Biograph Company did bring suit under that patent after it refused to take a license from the Edison Company, and I think that Avas the first suit that was brought under the patent. Q. You brought a suit against one or two theatres, did you not? William Fox, for instance? A. Yes. Q. And the Lyric Theatre. Those were theatres that were using the Edison film and the film of the Edison licensees? A. I don't know about that. Q. Has there ever been any decision of the courts since 1903, upholding the Pross patent? A. No. Q. You brought suit after the Motion Picture Patents Company was formed under that patent? A. I believe so. Q. Have you prosecuted any of them? A. There are some now going forward. Q. Mr. Marvin, you said yesterday, that there were about 150 exchanges about the time the Patents Company was formed and I notice in your answer you state,