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 #:
000296
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 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.

3302 Petitioner's Exhibit No. 267. concerned with photographic pellicles or the process of producing the same, but with making a substitute for india rubber and gutta percha consisting of a waterproof coating for fabrics which may also be used for book bindings, button making and similar purposes and may be pressed or rolled into different forms or thin sheets. In 185G he was dealing with the substitution of collodion for glass as a support for the prepared film in taking photographs. He says, "or a thick layer of collodion may be first formed on the glass, and on this layer the film of prepared collodion may be produced, and the picture taken thereon and suitably varnished or protected, afterwards the whole may be stripped from the glass together." The 1865 patent has to do with the manufacture of "Parkesine," a product undoubtedly named in honor of the inventor, and his claim is "the employment of nitrobenzole, aniline and glacial acetic acid or either of them for dissolving pyroxyline in the manufacture of Parkesine and similar compounds of pyroxyline." He also claims the above ingredients in the manufacture of collodion. David's contribution to the art is found in photographic journals which purport to give his remarks in explaining experiments made by him. These were tentative efforts on his part which he hoped might culminate in something practical, but they never did. The various articles contain expressions like the following: "He believes that this substance is sufficiently transparent and flexible to form good material for photographic plates, provided it can be cut sufficiently thin. His various attempts to cut it have not been successful. I think they will have to render them less inflammable, for if only a spark falls on one of these leaves it is sufficient to produce rapid combustion. Mr. David presents films produced with celluloid which probably might serve as a support for the sensitized preparations. He says probably, because he has not yet been able 1<> make the experiment. P>ut we believe that the difficulty of manipulation and the high price of liquid celluloid would prevent Ihis process from entering practical realms. One of our members has tried this process, but has not obtained good results in proceeding by successive coatings." All this uncertainty and doubt is far from the clear and explicit statement required to anticipate a patent. There is no evidence thai anyone ever did make the Goodwin pelli