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 000254 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 #:
000254
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.

232 Harry N. Marvin, Direct Examination. This was the purest nonsense for them to so hold, as you will note from an observation of those sketches in the answer. Q. You distinguish then between invention and patent? A. Oh, certainly. You may have a perfactly invalid patent on a bona fide invention. Q. Yes. When you use the statement : "These films were produced by a camera that embodied not only his invention, but the invention of Latham," you do not want to give, by that sentence, the impression that Edison's camera infringed the Latham patent? A. Oh, yes, I do. When I wrote that statement I had in mind the fact that that camera involved the invention of Latham as patented, and was covered by Latham's patent, and I think so still. Q. Then on page 36, you say : "Six or eight other concerns were engaged in importing films from Europe, which infringed Edison's film re-issue." Prior to the formation of this Patents Company, you were contending just the reverse, that the films imported did not infringe Edison's film re-issue patent, did you not? A. No. I claimed the Edison film re-issue was invalid. Q. But you noAV claim it is valid? A. Yes. Q. So, in that respect, your position has changed? A. Yes. Q. On page 45, I see you state: "This respondent, although in form a holding company, is, and always has been in substance a Trustee." Trustee for whom? A. Trustee for the original owners of the patents. Q. On page 55, after enumerating a number of reasons which you urge as justifying the formation of the General Film Company, you state : "Obviously, the exclusive uses vested in the rental exchanges needed reasonable regulation, or else the distribution of films would continue to be unfairly conducted." One of the purposes of the formation of the General Film Company, I take it, was to accomplish that "reasonable regulation" was it not? A. Yes. One of the purposes of the organization was to regulate the supply of film furnished by that organization to its customers in such a way that its customers would derive great benefits. At this point, an adjournment was taken until 10.00 o'clock A. M., Friday, January 17th, 1913, at the same place.