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 000235 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 #:
000235
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.

Harry N. Marvin, Direct Examination. 32G3 A. I here produce the illustrative mechanism, and its present condition illustrates some of the features embodied in the cameras of the period concerning which I have testified, and it is arranged so as to be capable of modification so as to show the different types of mechanism that I have referred to, reference being made at the same time to photographs which I have had made, showing the mechanism as arranged in several ways, illustrating features concerning which I have testified. Mr. Church : Counsel for the defendant offers the illustrative apparatus produced by the witness, in evidence, and requests that the same be marked "Defendants' Exhibit 178." The exhibit is received in evidence, and is so marked. By Mr. Church: Q. If you have prepared a description of this illustrative apparatus in its various adjustments, I wish you would read it to the Examiner as a short mode of putting upon the record a description of the apparatus. A. I have prepared a brief description of this mechanism in its different aspects, which I will read as I arrange the mechanism, to illustrate the various features concerning wThich I have testified. This mechanism as now arranged, and which arrangement is shown by Photograph No. 1, which I here produce, illustrates the common features of cameras in use at the beginning of 1908, as described in the first part of my answer to the question concerning such cameras. In this mechanism and photograph will be noted, the single stationary lens, marked "A" on the photograph; the single flexible sensitized tape-like film, marked "B" on the photograph; the supports on opposite sides of the lens, marked "C" and "Cl? on the photograph; the intermediate section crossing the lens, marked "Dv on the photograph ; the main driving shaft, marked "E" on the photograph ; the intermittent feeding mechanism connected with the driving shaft, which I here detach from the rest of the mechanism and exhibit, but which is obscured on the photograph by the flywheel "F." (The witness here detaches the portion of the mechanism referred to.)