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 000231 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 6
Leaf #:
000231
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.

Harry N. Marvin, Direct Examination. 325'.) having perforated edges supported on opposite sides of the lens, and movable longitudinally with reference thereto, and having an intermediate section crossing the lens, a main driving shaft adapted to be continuously rotated, and a feeding mechanism positively engaging the intermediate section of the film, and adapted to move it across the lens with an intermittent movement, and at a high rate of speed, a shutter actuated by the main driving shaft, and adapted to expose successive portions of the film during the intervals of rest, and a take-up reel actuated with varying speed by the main driving shaft, and adapted to take up the film after exposure. In addition to these characteristics, the cameras possessed continuously rotating sprocket feed wheels, located between the intermittent feeding device and the supports, and positively engaging the film, one such feed wheel being located between the supply reel and the intermittent feeding device, and its action being to continuously and steadily and uniformly draw film from the supply reel and deliver slack film to the intermittent feeding device, the other continuously rotating sprocket feed wheel being located between the intermittent feeding device and the take-up reel, and its action being to continuously take up the slack film supplied by the intermittent feeding device, and deliver it to the take-up reel. Q. Did the so-called IUograph camera, the invention of Herman Casler, have the above characteristics of the cameras just described by you, and if not, why not? A. The Biograph camera, the invention of Casler, did not possess all of the above characteristics, but differed from the type of camera described, in several particulars. It did not use a perforated photographic film, but used a smooth, imperforated film. This film was not fed across the lens uniformly by feeding devices that positively engaged the film, but it was fed by friction, with a varying feed, so that the successive portions of film exposed to the lens were not uniformly spaced; the negative film resulting from the operation of this camera differed from the negative film resulting from the operation of the type of camera formerly described, in that it did not possess a series of perforations adapted to engage with feeding devices, and the series of photographs on the film were not equi-distant, but were unevenly spaced, and the negative produced by this camera