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 #:
000302
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.

3308 Harry N. Marvin, Recross Examination. that I had created that, but now would come the problem of manufacture. How was I going to get matches enough to be of any use? Obviously I could not whittle them out by hand, and so I would have to go to work if I wished to make my invention of any use, and invent a machine that would make the match. Now, how could I think of inventing a machine to make a match before I had the picture of the match before me in my mind as something to be made? And therefore I say that the conception of the film must have preceded the conception of the machine to be used in making the film. Recross examination by Mr. Grosvenor : Q. What do you mean by "conception of the film1'? A. The invention of the film. Q. By that you mean, then, that it was necessary for someone to invent the film before anyone could conceive the idea of using the film? A. No, I did not say that a person must invent the film before they conceived the idea of using a film. I think the conception of use must come first. People engaged in invention, particularly inventors of experience, endeavor to supply by inventions, demands which they know to exist. Redirect examination by Mr. Church: Q. Then are we to understand that your idea is that the conception of a motion picture film having the characteristics of those already described by you, must have preceded the conception of a machine for producing such a motion picture film? A. Unquestionably the conception of the film in this exact form that it was desired to have it, must have preceded the invention of a machine to produce such a film. Recross examination by Mr. Grosvenor : Q. But the conception of that film was not Edison's, was it? A. I always supposed it was, Mr. Grosvenor. You state that it was not, but I supposed that it was. Q. In using the word "conception'' you mean invention? A. Yes. Mr. Grosvenor : I introduce as part of the cross ex