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 (1914)

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:
1914
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 5
Leaf #:
00076
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.

2526 PETITIONER'S Exhibit No. 255. "The Edison company had already demonstrated the strength of their patents in the Court of Appeals which sustained the camera patent, and we were afraid to contest the validity of their film patent, for if it was sustained it would have barred us from America, as the Edison company would no doubt have exacted such heavy royalties that we could not afford to fijrht them. l&j Loop Patent Not Important. "A third reason was the claim of the Biograph company on the loop. We never thought much of this patent because it is dated 1896, and before that time we were making machines, and selling and using them, and all had the loop. Furthermore, during the past two years we have been using machines equipped with a little device which obviates the loop, and permits of any length film being run. It would cost about a dollar to apply the device to all projecting machines used in this country and if the Biograph patent on the Latham loop were sustained it would not trouble us longer than the time it would take to supply every exhibitor with this special device. We have used it for two years, and it works just as good as a sprocket with a loop. "The next reason was that, after looking carefully into the matter, we found arrayed on the side of Edison all the manufacturers in this country furnishing films on which the renter and exhibitor could rely — the Essanay Co., Vitagraph Co., Kalem Co., George Melies, S. Lubin, and the Selig Polyscope Co., who were practically the only ones furnishing films in this country. On the other side there was practically none known outside of Gaumont and Urban, and even among them were French concerns of whom we had never heard, notwithstanding the fact that I have been in the business for seven years. They probably are new concerns, and if ycu will look back you will find that the big concerns are the very oldest. The new companies do not amount to much. In Touch With Customers. "Furthermore, we were in constant touch with our customers, who informed us that they did not want English