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 #:
000298
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.

3304 Petitioner's Exhibit No. 267. ject to be attained, would hardly have selected a solvent which could not accomplish that object. Knowing the properties of nitrobenzole, he naturally would seek an equivalent having similar properties and not one having properties which would defeat the object in view. Later on, in response to a demand from the Patent Office, Goodwin removed all doubt by actually stating what we think the law implied, that he used "Xitrobenzole or other non-hydrous and non-hygroscopic solvents such as may be employed in producing celluloid, as distinguished from collodion." This amendment was within his rights; Hobbs v. Beach, 180 U. S., 383; Cleveland Foundry Co. v. Detroit Stove Works, 131 Fed. Rep., 853. But without the amendment we can hardly imagine a chemist stupid enough to select the "other solvent1' from those solvents which he must know would not do the work. Goodwin says in the specification, "In carrying out the invention I provide a suitable surface, such as that of glass, and flow over the same a solution of nitrocellulose (by which I do not mean a solution of the compound known as 'commercial celluloid' dissolved in alcohol or ether) dissolved in nitrobenzole", etc. The defendant now argues that as commercial celluloid contains damphor this language amounts to a disclaimer of camphor and that one who uses camphor in any amount, however small, avoids infringement. Wo think this contention is hypercritical and one which must be rejected by any fair and reasonable construction of the patent. Manifestly the patentee had in mind the amount of camphor used in commercial celluloid, which is said to be from 40 to 60 per cent. If he intended by the language to disclaim anything, it was such excessive use which, the proof shows, could not be successfully used to produce the result he had in view. He was endeavoring to distinguish his solution of nitrocellulose from the solution used in celluloid. Tn other words, he told the art that a solution containing from 40 to 00 per cent, of camphor would not do, but he never said that 13 or 14 per cent, of camphor would not do. Surely he did not intend to say that one who used his formula could