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 00058 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 4
Leaf #:
00058
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.

1908 Samuel Long, Direct Examination. favor that provision? A. My experience bad shown me that films become oil-stained, scratched, the sprocket holes worn, and because of breaks, portions of scenes were cut out, so that a film becomes in such a condition that it gives very poor exhibitions after it is from four to six months old. Six months or less was considered the life of a film, and for that reason I believed it desirable that the film should be returned. Q. Prior to the year 1908 did you ever see any of the boxes containing the motion picture film that had been manufactured by the Edison Company, or produced by the Edison Manufacturing Company? A. I saw them in exchanges. Q. Do you know whether or not those boxes contained printed labels, or labels stating that the film was patented? A. There was a label on the box, bearing the Edison trade mark, and a notice of the patent. Q. What, if any, connection did you have with the formation of the Motion Picture Patents Company? A. I had nothing to do with the formation of the company. Q. When was the first knowledge that you had that such a company had been formed or would be formed? A. It was on the day that we were called to examine the license, and sign it, or refuse. Q. Of course, you knew at that time that the Edison and Biograph interests had come to an agreement? A. I understood so. Q. And from whom did you get that understanding or information? A. From Mr. Dyer. Q. Had you discussed with Mr. Dyer in any way the question as to whether you would receive a license both under the Edison patents, and the Biograph and Armat patents? A. Yes, it had been discussed with Mr. Dyer. Q. Then you knew that you were to receive a license under both the Edison and the Biograph and Armat patents, but you didn't know in what particular way the license was to be issued? Mr. Grosvenor : I object to that as assuming something that the witness lias not testified to, and, furthermore, as leading. The Witness: No, I did not. I did not know the form