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 #:
000559
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.

Gov't Ex. 277, Decision ox Latham Fatext. 3411 would know enough to do this. It was simply applying it to a different, though analogous use. It has been assumed through all stages of this litigation that a camera could he used as a projector and vice versa. Thus the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia says : "A picture-taking camera, like many of those heretofore referred to as patented, could undoubtedly l>e utilized as an apparatus for exhibiting pictures also, by substituting a picture film in the carrying device and then applying the apparatus of the magic lantern." The District Judge also says that claims 7 and 9, as originally filed, "are equally applicable to a camera as to a projecting machine/' I have thus far proceeded upon the hypothesis that Latham was the first to make the invention which is the subject of the claims in controversy. The invention consists of a film-feeding mechanism operated by continuously rotating sprockets, a loop being produced and maintained in the slack film. Also a sprocket, rotating intermittently, which feeds the slack loop across the optical axis section by section. It is described in the specification as consisting in employing "means for bringing each picture to rest at the moment of projection, means for reducing the strain the picture-film would otherwise suffer from the rapid interruption and renewal of its movement, and means for maintaining uniformity of movement of the film as it unwinds from the delivering reel, and as it winds upon the receiving reel." The invention introduced a decided improvement to the art and one which can be used with equal advantage in a projector and a camera. If it were a new and useful improvement as to one, it was equally so as to the other. Bearing in mind that the invention with which we are concerned consists of the apparatus which produces this intermittent movement of the film across the exposure opening, I am unable to find any proof in the record which anticipates. Latham's application was filed .Tune 1, 1896. His invention was made on or prior to February 20, 1895, and