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 #:
000248
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.

226 Harry N. Marvin, Direct Examination. pany, that statement which you now make is directly contrary to the statement which you made prior to the formation of the Patents Company, is it not? A. I do not see that it is. I say now that we did business openly in defiance of the patents known to exist. I said then that we claimed that those patents were not valid, and we hoped to upset them in the Courts, but that did not deter us from going on and doing business in the meantime. That, I believe, is the common rule of business with patents. Q. Well, is there a common rule in business, as far as your experience goes relating to patents, for there to be this wilful disregard of the patent rights of others, which you have testified to were the prevailing conditions prior to the formation of the Patents Company? A. I think it is very uncommon for people engaged in business to pay much attention to the patents unless the owners of the patents make efforts to enforce the patents. Q. As I understood your last answer, you maintain that your position today on these patents is just what it was prior to the formation of the Patents Company? A. Oh, I did not mean to say that at all, Mr. Grosvenor. I mean to say that our position when we are fighting a patent that belongs to somebody else is radically different from our position when we own the patent and we are trying to enforce it. Q. You mean you state you believe one thing at one time, and then when circumstances change, you would say you believe another thing? A. No, I have not said I believe anything of that sort. Q. Well, now, before this Patent Company was formed, referring now to Exhibit No. 55, being that statement entitled "The Facts," you recollect, which was sent around by the Mutoscope or Biograph Company, your company, in referring to this patent No. 12,192 on the film and suits thereon, you say, "no such suit has been pressed, so far as we are aware, against any other person or corporation during the past five years," don't you? A. I think that appears in that statement. Q. And you also sent around quotations from the opinion of the Court in the suit which you won against the Edison Company, in which you print in black type a statement respecting Edison and the film "he was not the