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)

Page scan 00081 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:
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 #:
00081
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.

Petitioner's Exhibit No. 25(5. 2531 history than those of the Edison film patent, notwithstanding which no action has yet been taken against users of films which infringe this patent. This patent covers every camera and projecting machine that uses a loop, and I consider the statement recently made by one of Edison's licensees, that he can equip any machine within a short time with an attachment which would obviate the use of the loop, is born of the necessity of the present situation rather than of faith in the alleged device. If such a device really exists it would probably infringe the Latham patent. Biograph and Latham Patents. "If the courts declare the Latham patents valid it will be within the power of the Biograph Co. to dictate Iioav the machines may be used which involve this patent. They will have the right to declare whose films may be projected, and the use of any films not licensed by the Biograph Co. with a machine embodying the Latham patent will be an infringement, and make the user liable to the Biograph Co. for damages. "The Biograph Co., however, wishing to pursue a liberal policy, and seeking to avoid the appearance of intimidation, has brought no action against exhibitors, but has gone to the fountain head and summoned the Edison Manufacturing Co. into court for violation of the Latham patent. I am not in a position to speak for the Biograph Co. as to its course in the near future, but considering the events which have taken place recently it would be the natural sequence to bring suits against users of films licensed by the Edison Mfg. Co. for violation of the Latham patent. "It is our policy to protect to the utmost every user of films which we sell or rent, and while we do not use sonorous and bombastic language, threatening innumerable law suits against infringers, wherever found, the claims under the Latham patent will be pushed to a speedy decision, and if successful the Biograph Co. will then be in a position to secure injunctions instanter against anybody who uses films of any make upon a machine or camera which infringes its patent rights. Inasmuch as this question can be adjudicated in the one case against the Edison Manufacturing Co., it has not hithto been thought advisable or just to begin innumerable suits against exhibitors.