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 #:
000265
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. 3271 By Mr. Church: Q. State whether or not the several suits noted upon the list which is produced, have abated, and if so, for what reason, if you know. A. I understand that all of those suits have abated, owing to the surrender of the patent under which they were brought, and the re-issue of that patent. Q. Why, if you know, was the re-issue No. 12,037 again surrendered and re-issued? A. For the purpose of eliminating the fourth claim of that patent. Q. What, if any suits, have been brought by the Motion Picture Patents Company on Edison camera re-issue No. 13,329, of December 5th, 1911, being the re-issue of reissue No. 12,037, before referred to? A. A suit was brought against the Independent Moving Picture Company of America, and Carl Laemmle, on March 4th, 1912, in the Southern District of New York, and a suit was brought against the Imp Film Company, and Carl Laemmle, on the same day and in the same district. These two suits, I understand, have been progressed as one. Q. Is there not another suit pending on that same reissue in New Jersey, and if so, please state the name of it and the title of it, if you know? A. There is also a suit pending against the Eclair Company in New Jersey. That suit was brought on the 9th of April, 1913. Mr. Grosvenor: Under the same patent? The Witness: Under the same patent. By Mr. Church: Q. The title of that suit is what? A. That suit was brought against the Society Francaise des Films et Cinematographe Eclair. Q. Is there any suit now pending and being prosecuted under Edison film re-issue No. 12,192 of January 12th, 1901, and if so, give the name of the defendant in that suit, and state where the suit is pending? A. A suit under Patent No. 12,192 was brought on the 9th of April, 1913, against the Society Francaise Eclair in New Jersey. That suit is now pending.