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 000271 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 #:
000271
Language:
English
Collection:
Early Cinema and Government & Law
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.

Hakky N. Marvin, Direct Examination. 3277 Thereupon, HARRY N. MABVIN resumed the stand for l further direet examination. Direct examination continued by Mr. Church : Q. State whether or not the illustrative apparatus in Defendants' Exhibit No. 178 has ever been used for the practical production and exhibition of motion pictures, and if yea, state whether or not it is now capable of such use? A. This illustrative mechanism has been used. It was used to make the negative motion picture introduced in evidence and marked Defendants' Exhibit No. 170, and it has been used 2 as a projecting machine in projecting the positive motion picture Defendants' Exhibit No. 177, made from the above mentioned negative motion picture. The apparatus is now in condition suitable for practical use. (}. Answering the question put you on page 3260 of the record, you stated there were no projecting machines in commercial use in this country from the beginning of 1908 down to the present time that did not embody all of the characteristics described by you in your description of projecting machines. I wrould now ask you whether or not the several projecting machines that have been referred to from time to time 3 by the witnesses in this case, namely, Power's Nos. 4, 5, 6, 6a ; Edison Exhibition, and Model B; Motiograph, 1, la and 2; Kinodrome; Standard; and Simplex, were machines that fell within the description given by you? A. All of those machines are machines that fell within the description given by me. Q. State, if you know, by whom the Power machines were manufactured. A. They were manufactured by the Power Manufacturing Company. Q. The same question as to the Exhibition and Model B machines. A. Edison Manufacturing Company or Thomas A. Edison, Incorporated. O. By Power Manufacturing Company, do you mean Nicholas Power Company? A. Yes, Nicholas Power being the name of the man who invented the machine, according to my understanding. Q. Who put out the Kinodrome machines? A. George K. Spoor, or the Essanay Company. I don't remember which. Q. And what concerns put out the Standard machine so