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 000245 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 #:
000245
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.

Harry N. Marvin, Direct Examination. 223 entirely, because they were not able, owing to various causes, to absolutely enforce their patents — a certain amount of lilm continued to come into the country in infringement of their patents, which they were unable absolutely to stop. Q. When film is imported, what patent do you claim it violates? A. When? Mr. Grosvenor: Read the question. The question was repeated to the witness. A. Well, I asked the question, "when," because — Q. (Interrupting.) If I am not clear, I will change my question. A. You will change it? (>. If it is not clear to you. I say, when films are imported to-day from abroad, and by film I mean moving picture film positives, what patent is infringed? A. When such film is sold for use on a projecting machine — Q. (Interrupting.) I am not saying when it is sold. I say when it is imported into this country, what patent does it infringe? If you cannot answer that, go on and answer it in your own way? A. I am not finicky about the matter, but — the film does not infringe the patent at all. It is the man who handles the film, as I understand it, and the importer who brings the film into this country when he sells that film, violates the patent covering the film, and if he sells that film intentionally for use upon a patented projecting machine, he becomes a contributory infringer upon the patented projecting machine, and that is why I asked "when." Q. Prior to the formation of this Patents Company, yon had maintained throughout your business life, that the film was unpatented, hadn't you? A. No. We knew that the film was patented, but we claimed that we would be able to defeat the film patent. Q. And you claimed that you had defeated the film patent? A. Well, we claimed that we had defeated the first general patent of Edison, which covered film and camera. That patent— Q. (Interrupting.) You never imposed any restriction upon the use of films with your projecting machines prior to the beginning of 1908, when you and the Edison people