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 000208 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 #:
000208
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.

186 Harry N. Marvin, Direct Examination. which were not manufactured by one of the licensed manufacturers? A. Yes, handling infringing films. Q. And by infringing films you mean films manufactured by others than the licensed manufacturers? A. I mean the films that embodied inventions covered by our patents made by people who were not licensed under the patent. Q. And by that term you mean all film used on moving picture machines or projecting machines manufactured by any other than licensed manufacturers and importers? A. All such film manufactured by all people who were not licensed under the patents. Q. In your answer, beginning at page 53, you proceed to enumerate, beginning with folio 1G4, and thereafter, certain methods of doing business by the rental exchanges which were deemed unsatisfactory by the Patents Company: "(a) Rental exchanges were financially irresponsible." Do you mean to state that these rental exchanges whom you selected as being, as you have testified, the responsible exchanges — do you mean to say that that is a true statement in your answer — "Rental exchanges were financially irresponsible?" A. Yes, in some cases we found that ex changes which we had supposed were responsible, were not financially responsible, and that we had been mistaken in our estimate of them. Q. Well, you have used there a pretty general statement. You say, "Rental exchanges were financially irresponsible. " Do you mean all rental exchanges or some rental exchanges? A. At what time does this refer to — if they were licensed before — Q. (Interrupting) : It says, "During the period of organization of this respondent" (respondent Patents Company), "and prior to the organization of the General Film Company, hereinafter referred to?" A. Yes. Q. I have not examined you about the General Film Company. This relates to the period after the formation of the Patents Company, December 18, 1908, down to April, 1910? A. Yes.