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 000572 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 #:
000572
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.

3424 Jui.es E. Brulatotjr, Recross Examination. pictures sometimes referred to as "film," and is such use of the term sometimes confusing as to motion pictures and raw stock? A. Well, that question I could answer this way — it depends on the sense in which the word is used. If I am talking to an exchange man, for instance, and he speaks of his "film'1 I know he means his finished product, and if I am talking to somebody at the factory, for instance, of the Kodak Company, and he and I refer to "film," I know that means the unexposed film. Q. How long have you been in the motion picture film business altogether? A. Probably six years, I guess. About six or seven years, probably, since the Patents Company was formed. Q. Before you went into the motion picture business at all, did you have any knowledge of it, or did you then have any idea of the distinctions of the word "film1' as used in the business? A. Yes, I was in the material and photographic business before, that is how I drifted into it. I had the agency for the Lumiere Company of France, for their different photographic material. Q. You mean the word "film" is particularly confusing to persons who have no knowledge of the motion picture business? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you know of such instances? A. Yes, sir, it would be to this extent : If you refer to the roll film for kodaks, or film for the moving picture business, or a flat film used in place of plates, of the same type of film. The Seed Company of St. Louis, used to sell a flat film. That was a film used in place of the plate in the camera. Q. Did you state that before the Patents Company was formed you were distributing Lumiere film? A. No, not film then. I had the agency, but I didn't sell any. Q. Did the Lumiere Company make film? A. Oh, yes, at Lyons, France. Q. And you had the agency for that? A. I had the agency, yes, sir. Q. Did the Lumiere Company manufacture moving picture film? A. Yes, sir. Q. And when did they begin to put it out in a form available for use on cameras and projecting machines in this country? A. Well, the first film that I imported in this country was imported probably — oh, not very long after