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 000267 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 #:
000267
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. 3273 those standard dimensions, for commercial use on projecting mac] lines? A. They do not, Q. Did any of the cameras in use and on the market at the time of the organization of the Motion Picture Patents Company, produce motion picture films that were not of such standard dimensions? A. They did not. Q. Did any of the exchanges licensed by the Motion Picture Patents Company handle or deal in any motion picture films that were not of such standard dimensions? A. They did not. Q. Did any of the makes of projecting ma chines that were on the market or in use at the time of the formation of the Motion Picture Patents Company, handle motion picture films that were not of such standard dimensions? A. They did not. Q. Did any of the exhibitors of motion picture films exhibit motion picture films that were not of such standard dimensions, or use a projecting machine adapted to handle any motion picture film that was not of such standard dimension? A. They did not. Q. Did the General Film Company handle any motion picture films that were not of such standard dimensions or serve any exhibitors whose projecting machines were adapted to exhibit motion picture films that were not of such standard dimensions? A. They did not. Q. Is it or is it not then true that any trade or business which the defendants herein or any one or more of them car ried on prior to or since the bringing of this suit (so far as the same related to motion picture films or apparatus for producing or exhibiting motion picture films, or to systems of distribution of motion picture films, cameras, or projecting machines, through exchanges or otherwise) had relation solely to motion picture films of the aforesaid standard dimensions, and to apparatus for producing or exhibiting such standard film? A. All such business and apparatus have relation solely to motion picture films having such standard dimensions. Q. You were, were you not, one of those who had to do with the devising of the plan involving: 1, the formation of the Motion Picture Patents Company to take over the various patents relating to the motion pic