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)

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 #:
000220
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 21, 2023
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.

2070 Frederick A. Anthony, Direct Examination. small factory that Mr. Goodwin had built in Newark was not large enough to carry on any business that would amount to anything, and in the Fall of 1901, we began building a factory in Binghamton for the manufacture of the film. That factory was completed in 1902, and all during the year of 1902 we were busy in making machinery to manufacture the base, and the coating machines, making photographic paper, and we began the manufacture of a small folding camera, similar to a kodak, at our apparatus factory. All these things kept us fully occupied. Q. State the character of the film that you were proceeding to manufacture under the Goodwin patent at that time, and for what purpose you intended to use it? A. The film we manufactured was used for making cartridge film. Q. That is for use in the ordinary kodak, or camera? A. Yes, but that film is the same kind of film that is used for making motion pictures. Q. Did you enter upon any litigation with the Eastman Company over the Goodwin patent, or any other patent? A. We did, in the Fall of 1902, as soon as we had built our factory in Binghamton, and were in position to furnish the public with the cartridge form of film, we began a suit under the Goodwin patent against the Eastman Kodak Company, and early in 1903 they began a suit against us under a patent called the Turner patent, also relating to photographic film. Their patent was for the cartridge form of film and our patent was for the base itself, and those two litigations were carried on for several years. Q. For how long were those litigations carried on? A. The Turner case took between four and five years, and the Goodwin case was just finished this year. Q. Did the conduct of those two patent suits tax the resources of the Anthony & Scoville Company? A. Yes; the conduct of those suits and the building of the factory, and the putting of new goods on the market, and the making of the machinery, and we were obliged to borrow very heavily from our banks. Q. Will you state now the financial condition of the Anthony & Scoville Company, commencing with the year 1902, and continuously up to the year 1908? A. In 1902, when the company was busy with its building, and the putting out of its new goods, it required a great deal of money, and we had to borrow quite heavily from the banks.