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 #:
000249
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.

lLutitY N. Marvin, Direct Examination. 227 inventor of the film," didn't you? A. Yes, we sent around 1 such statements. Q. But today, now that you have come in under the Patents Company, you claim that that Patent No. 12,192 covers all films, all positive motion picture films, is that right? A. I think you are confusing the matter, Mr. Grosvenor, by that quotation. I explained before that that quotation in heavy type I understood at the time to mean, and understand now to mean, that Mr. Edison was not the inventor of the raw stock, the base upon which the motion pictures are printed, but I do claim now that Mr. Edison was the inventor of the motion picture strip. The strip of film with the motion pictures printed upon it, which is distinct from the raw film stock. Q. Mr. Marvin, when you sent that circular around, were you talking about the raw film or the photographic film, the film with the pictures on it? A. We were talking about either — Q. (Interrupting.) You were not talking about either — A. (Interrupting.) That was a quotation from a decision of the Court which we were quoting for the information of the people. Q. I say, does this circular have relation to the raw film manufactured by Eastman, or does it not have relation to the film with pictures on it which you were distributing in the trade? A. You mean the quotation from the decision of the Court? Q. No, this pamphlet? A. Well, that pamphlet has reference to the general patent situation. We desired the public to believe that the situation was just as favorable to the Biograph Company as was possible. It was commercially necessary for us to encourage the people to believe that, and we took the most hopeful view of the situation we could, as is customary in cases of that kind. If the Edison Company had issued a circular, they would probably have been equally hopeful the other way. Q. And you think your position today is perfectly in accord with your position when yon sent this circular around? A. No, I would not say that. It is very different. Then we were fighting the patent, and now we own it. Then, we were belittling it, now we are making the most of it. Q, This is the patent that has been held bad since? A. I believe there has been a decision in the District of Columbia