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 000219 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 #:
000219
Language:
English
Collection:
Early Cinema and Government & Law
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.

Frederick A. Anthony, Direct Examination. 2069 Q. That was the first time, then, that your company became interested in the manufacture of film? A. The first time we became interested in the manufacture of "rolled film." We had made what they called "cut film" as far back as 1888, when I became connected with it. Q. You spoke of taking over the obligations that were entered into with the Goodwin Company. This obligation was to manufacture film under the so-called Goodwin patent, and to prosecute infringers of that patent? A. Yes, that is correct. Q. State what the condition was in respect to that? Mr. Grosvenor: Which patent was that? The Witness : The Goodwin film and camera, that was issued to Hannibal Goodwin. Mr. Grosvenor: Was that a patent that related to the composition of the raw film? The Witness: The base. Mr. Grosvenor: The base of the film? The Witness: Well, the claim — do you want this to go on the record? Mr. Grosvenor: Everything you say goes on the record. The Witness: Well, I didn't know. By Mr. Caldwell: Q. You may proceed, Mr. Anthony. Mr. Grosvenor : T think this is immaterial, and I must object to this line of questioning as immaterial, relating, as it does, to another patent. The Witness: The contract required us to manufacture this film without unnecessary delay, and we began to experiment to make the base for the coating. We found that the