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 000253 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 #:
000253
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. 231 Q. And you use a perforating machine for that, don't you? A. Yes. And then, if it is negative film, it is passed through the camera, and then it is developed and dried. Then it is used in printing positives. If it is positive film, after it is perforated, it is run through a printing machine in conjunction with a negative film, and the picture is printed on it. Q. All manufacturers do that, don't they? They just take the film which Eastman gives them, and run it through the camera after they perforate it? A. Yes, I think they do. Sometimes the film is treated before it is run through the camera by steaming or some process like that so as to eliminate the danger of static electricity. Q. The fact that Eastman has created this film has made successful, or made possible, the motion picture art, is that not correct? Was there any motion picture art prior to the time when he manufactured his first film? A. There was not. Q. Is there anything that can be substituted today in the camera for this film? A. For photographc film? Q. Yes. A. I don't know of anything that could be successfully substituted for the photographic film of some manufacture. Q. Do you still maintain that this is an accurate statement : "The film contains one essential invention, Edison's only?" A. I do. Q. Is there any patent on that film manufactured by Eastman, do you know? A. I do not know. I think he has patents on his process. I am not sure. Q. On page 35 you say, referring to the films produced by Edison: "These films wTere produced by his camera, that embodied, not only his invention, but the invention of Latham." Is that a fair statement? A. I think so. Q. Has not a court held that the Latham patent does not apply to a camera? A. One court held so, as to two Judges, and one Judge dissented. My opinion is that the two Judges are wrong. Q. The only court that has passed upon the question takes a contrary view from that given in the sentence I have quoted? A. I do not so understand, Mr. Grosvenor. I think the court decided that the patent could not cover cameras, owing to some disclaimer or abandonment or something of that kind of Latham, but 1 do not think that they ever held that the invention of Latham did not reside in the camera.