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)

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 #:
000246
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:
May 23, 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.

224 Harry N. Marvin, Direct Examination. had that trouble, did you? A. Prior to that time, the only patent ou projecting machines that we owned was the Pross patent, which was not in common use until 1907, and then Ave did not sell machines with that Pross shutter on them, and so we were not in position to put any restrictions upon any machines. Q. Well, we went into those patents this morning. Returning to this paragraph, which I read from page 44, you say, "To perfect the business of this art, the control must be single and systematic." Now, by "control'' there, you refer to such control as has been exercised by the Patents Company licensees? A. Well, some control. That is a very broad question. I would not like to say offhand without considering just what bearing that had. Q. You say also, "The business needed fair and effective regulation of some kind by single and efficient control." Did you endeavor by the Patents Company and these licenses to impose that single and efficient control which you thought necessary? Mr. Caldwell: That question is objected to as incompetent. A. The Motion Picture Patents Company endeavored to exercise such a control of its licenses as would enhance its business interests by extending the use of its patented apparatus and augmenting its royalties. Q. Read the question, will you please, and see if you can give a yes or no answer to it. The stenographer repeats the question. A. I do not think I can answer that question yes or no. Q. Well, did you attempt by the Patents Company and these licenses to impose or create that fair and effective regulation of the business which you thought necessary? Can you answer that yes or no? A. We did, so far as the actions of our licensees in handling licensed film and apparatus was concerned. Q. I direct your attention to this sentence in your answer, at page 38, the top of it, referring to conditions prior to the formation of the Patents Company: "There was then