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 #:
000263
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.

Harry N. Marvin, Direct Examination. 3269 the light during the interval of movement of the film and twice during the interval of pause and illumination. Mr. Church : The chart last referred to by the witness is offered in evidence, and it is requested that the same be marked "Defendant's Exhibit 183." The exhibit is received in evidence, and is so marked. By Mr. Church: Q. Please state whether or not the several patents recited as owned by the Motion Picture Patents Company in the license agreement between the Motion Picture Patents Company and the Biograph Company, dated December 18th, 1908 (being Exhibit No. 3 attached to the plaintiff's petition), were, in fact, owned by the Motion Picture Patents Company at the date of the said license agreement, and have been continued to be owned by said company up to this time. A. All of those patents were owned by the Motion Picture Patents Company at the time stated, and the ownership of all of those patents has continued in the Motion Picture Patents Company up to the present time. Q. Will you please give a list of the suits brought on the Edison camera re-issue Patent No. 12,037, after the assignment of that patent to the Motion Picture Patents Company, and the result of such suits? A. I have prepared such a list showing all such suits. Mr. Church : Counsel for the defendant offers the list produced by the witness in evidence, and requests that the same be marked ''Defendants' Exhibit 184." Mr. Grosvexor: I make objection to the last column of this exhibit, the same being misleading, inasmuch as the same states or purports to give the dates on which several injunctions were issued in the cases named. It does not recite the fact that in each and every case where it is stated an injunction was granted in the case, the injunction has become valueless by reason of the re-issue of the patent, or by reason of other cause. The list referred to is received in evidence and marked "Defendant's Exhibit 184," and is as follows: