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 000302 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 2
Leaf #:
000302
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.

920 Dyer Interview. sentative of the Show World as set forth in the article to which I have called your attention? A. I am undoubtedly the Frank L Dyer referred to, but I am not able to say whether the article in question is a correct interview or not. Q9. You gave an interview to a representative of this paper, did you not, at or about this time? A. I think so. Q10. Is the account of this interview substantially correct? A. Yies. My recollection is that, at that time, the two conflicting interests in the motion picture field (the Edison and Biograph Companies) spent a good deal of time in talking about their patents in the trade papers and this article appears to be one of the numerous articles that appeared in the trade press relating to these matters. I cannot say that the opinions that were expressed in an article of this kind would be as carefully considered as they might be. A good deal of the talk was largely for advertising purposes ; the Biograph people pretended to sneer at our patents and it was human nature for us to sneer at theirs. Mr. Kenyon: All but the first word objected to as irresponsive, immaterial, volunteered and incompetent, Qll. I notice that in this article you say, among other things, "The Latham Patent was granted August 26th, 1902, and according to the people who are now affirming its validity, it has been infringed by every one since that time." What concerns did you refer to by "infringed by every one since that time"? A. The various manufacturers of moving pictures in this country who, I assumed, made use of cameras involving the Latham invention and the manufacturers of projecting machines including principally the Edison Company, S. Lubin of Philadelphia, the Motiograph Co. of Chicago, and the Powers Co. of New York. Q12. Up to this time, had any suits been brought on the Latham Patent that is involved in this suit, No. 707,934? A. I am not able to say. There has been no suit brought against the Edison Co. that I know of.