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 000543 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 #:
000543
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.

Gov't Ex. 277, Decision ox Latham Patent. 331)5 predetermined supply of slack, and the other adapted to intermittently feed the slack across the exposure window." "(3) The combination with devices which support the bulk of the film and supply it for exposure and receive it after exposure, of positively driven devices separate and distinct from the film-supporting devices, located between them and at opposite sides of the exposure window, and which respectively engage with and accurately and uniformly feed the film, and which respectively produce and take up slack in it, and an intermittently acting device located between said last-named devices which intermittently moves the slackened part of the film across the exposure-window." "(5) The combination with devices which support the bulk of a flexible film and supply it for exposure and receive it after exposure, of positively driven devices separate and distinct from the filmsupporting devices and located between them at opposite sides of the exposure-window, and which engage the film and accurately insure its feeding, which last-named devices respectively produce and take up slack in the film, and an intermittently acting device provided with teeth which engage in holes in the film whereby it feeds the film across the exposureopening." "(8) The combination with two reels which support the bulk of a flexible film, one of which supplies it for exposure and the other receives it after exposure, of a positively driven device separate and distinct from the said reels and located between the supply-reel and the exposure-window and which produces a loop of slack film, and an intermittently acting device likewise positively driven which moves the film picture by picture into the optical axis at the exposure-window and causes each picture to remain momentarily at rest in the optical axis.'1 The District Court was of the opinion that the claims were limited to the use of the apparatus in projecting machines; ami, as the defendant uses its machine as a camera