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 000247 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 #:
000247
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. 225 not a single concern or individual in the United Stales that was able to do a lawful business in the motion picture art, either in making negatives or positives, or importing or using or renting or constructing machines to lawfully exhibit them." And there is something else I want to read to 3011 on the same page: "Nobody could move lawfully, therefore everybody began to move unlawfully by infringing uses against the one or the other." And on page 40, you say : "There were then two broad factions In the business. On the one side, the Edison licensees, and on the other side, the Biograph licensees, each infringing the patents of the other." And on page 52: ''Prior to the organization of this respondent, no lawful projecting machine was ever manufactured or sold by any person whomsoever.'* On page 16, you say, at the bottom of the page, "Edison, therefore, became an infringer in respect to his camera" referring to the Latham patent. Mr. Marvin, this statement, "That there was then not a single concern or individual in the United States that was able to do a lawful business in the motion picture art, either in making negatives or positives, or importing or using or renting or constructing machines, to lawfully exhibit them." Do you mean to say that each one of these defendants in this suit were doing business prior to the formation of the Patents Company in an unlawful manner, so far as patents were concerned? A. I do. Q. Each one of them was wilfully and deliberately violating all the patent rights of every other? A. Yes, sir. Q. Not one of them had any regard or paid any attention to ordinary rules of property rights respecting patents? A. Not to my knowledge. Q. You had no regard for the patent rights of others? A. We did not. Q. The Edison Company had no regard for the patent rights of others? A. Apparently not. Q. As a matter of fact, prior to the formation of the Patents Company, you claimed that you did have a right to sell these films, didn't you? A. We claimed that we had a right on the ground that the patents covering the films were invalid. Q. This statement and this contention which you make now today, as to the lawfulness of your business, as conducted by you prior to the formation of the Patents Com