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 6
Leaf #:
000234
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 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.

3262 Harry N. Marvin, Direct Examination 1 By Mr. Church: Q. Can yon and will von produce also a positive motion picture film typical of the positive motion picture films on the market in January, 1908, as to which you have testified? A. I can and do herewith produce such a positive motion picture film. Mr. Grosvenor : Is this positive motion picture film which you now produce a positive copy of the negative which you also produced and which was marked "Defendants' Exhibit 176?" The Witness: It is. Mr. Church : Counsel for the defendant offers in evidence the positive motion picture film produced by the witness, and requests that the same be marked "Defendants1 Exhibit 177." The exhibit is received in evidence, and is so marked. By Mr. Church: Q. I have asked you to prepare an illustrative apparatus to serve as an aid to the Court in understanding the various features of cameras and of projecting machines known to you to be available and on the market in January, 1908, as testified to by you. If you have done so, will you please produce it and explain it as briefly as possible? A. I have prepared such an illustrative mechanism, and I am prepared to explain it. As the explanation, however, is somewhat tedious, I have written out a description in as brief language as I could employ, which will perhaps save time if I am permitted to present or to read it. If it is not satisfactory, I will proceed to make the description without reference. Mr. Church: Is there any objection to that, Mr. Grosvenor? Mr. Grosvenor: I suggest that the witness first identify the illustrative mechanism, as he calls it, and then I will read the statement and determine.