Motion Picture Patents Company: Difference between revisions

Biograph retaliated for being frozen out of the trust agreement by purchasing the patent to the [[Latham loop|Latham film loop]], a key feature of virtually all motion picture cameras then in use. Edison sued to gain control of the patent; however,. afterAfter a federal court upheld the validity of the patent in 1907,<ref>{{cite court |litigants= Edison v. American Mutoscope & Biograph Co.|vol= 151|reporter= F.|opinion= 767|pinpoint= |court= 2d. Cir.|date= 1907|url= https://archive.org/stream/gov.uscourts.f1.151/151.f1#page/n779/mode/2up|accessdate= |quote=}}</ref> Edison began negotiation with Biograph in May 1908 to reorganize the Edison licensing system. The resulting trust pooled 16 motion picture patents. Ten were considered of minor importance;. theThe remaining key six pertained one each to films, cameras, and the [[Latham loop]], and three to projectors.<ref name="MPPC1915">{{cite court |litigants= U.S. v. Motion Picture Patents Co.|vol= 225|reporter= F.|opinion= 800|pinpoint= |court= E.D. Pa.|date= 1915|url= https://archive.org/stream/gov.uscourts.f1.225/225.f1#page/n813/mode/2up|accessdate= |quote=}}</ref>

[[Image:Edison Studio Bronxbis.jpg|200px|thumb|right|Several films in production circa {{Circa|1907}}]]

However, theThe MPPC also established a monopoly on all aspects of filmmaking. Eastman Kodak, which owned the patent on raw film stock, and the company was a member of the trust and thus agreed to sell stock only to other members. Likewise, the trust's control of patents on motion picture cameras ensured that only MPPC studios were able to film, and the projector patents allowed the trust to make licensing agreements with distributors and theaters – and thus determine who screened their films and where.

The patents owned by the MPPC allowed them to use federal law enforcement officials to enforce their licensing agreements and to prevent unauthorized use of their cameras, films, projectors, and other equipment. In some cases, however, the MPPC made use of hired thugs and mob connections to violently disrupt productions that were not licensed by the trust.<ref>{{cite book|last= Bach|first= Steven|date= 1999|title= Final Cut: Art, Money, and Ego in the Making of Heaven's Gate, the Film that Sank United Artists|url= https://archive.org/details/finalcutartmoney00bach/page/30|location= New York|publisher= Newmarket Press|page= [https://archive.org/details/finalcutartmoney00bach/page/30 30]|isbn= 978-1-55-704374-0|url-access= registration}}</ref>

The MPPC also strictly regulated the production content of their films, primarily as a means of cost control. Films were initially limited to one reel in length (13–17 minutes),<ref>Projection speeds ranged from 16 to 20 frames per second.</ref> although competition by independent and foreign producers by 1912 led to the introduction of two-reelers, and by 1913, three- and four-reelers.<ref>For example, the four-reelers ''[[From the Manger to the Cross]]'' ([[Kalem Company|Kalem]], 1913), ''[[The Battle of Shiloh]]'' ([[Lubin Manufacturing Company|Lubin]], 1913), and ''[[The Third Degree (1913 film)|The Third Degree]]'' (Lubin, 1913).</ref>

Many independent filmmakers, who controlled from one-quarter to one-third of the domestic marketplace, responded to the creation of the MPPC by moving their operations to [[Hollywood, California|Hollywood]], whose distance from Edison's home base of [[New Jersey]] made it more difficult for the MPPC to enforce its patents.<ref>{{cite news |last= Edidin|first= Peter|date= August 21, 2005|title= La-La Land: The Origins|url= |newspaper= [[The New York Times]]|page= 4.2 |quote= Los Angeles's distance from New York was also comforting to independent film producers, making it easier for them to avoid being harassed or sued by the Motion Picture Patents Company, AKA the Trust, which Thomas Edison helped create in 1909.}}</ref> The [[Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals]], which is headquartered in [[San Francisco]], [[California]], and covers the area, was averse to enforcing patent claims.<ref>e.g., {{cite court |litigants= Zan v. Mackenzie|vol= 80|reporter= F.|opinion= 732|pinpoint= |court= 9th Cir.|date= 1897|url= https://archive.org/stream/gov.uscourts.f1.080/080.f1#page/n747/mode/2up|accessdate= |quote=}}, {{cite court |litigants= Germain v. Wilgus|vol= 67|reporter= F.|opinion= 597|pinpoint= |court= 9th Cir.|date= 1895|url= https://archive.org/stream/gov.uscourts.f1.067/067.f1#page/n611/mode/2up|accessdate= |quote=}} and {{cite court |litigants= Johnson Co. v. Pac. Rolling Mills Co.|vol= 51|reporter= F.|opinion= 762|pinpoint= |court= 9th Cir.|date= 1892|url= https://archive.org/stream/gov.uscourts.f1.051/051.f1#page/n773/mode/2up|accessdate= |quote=}}.</ref> [[Southern California]] was also chosen because of its beautiful year-round weather and varied countryside; its [[topography]], [[semi-arid]] climate and widespread [[irrigation]] gave its landscapes the ability to offer motion picture shooting scenes set in deserts, jungles and great mountains. Hollywood had one additional advantage: if a non-licensed studio was sued, it was only a hundred miles to "run for the border" and get out of the US to Mexico, where the trust's patents were not in effect and thus equipment could not be seized.{{citation needed|date=January 2017}}

* [https://archive.today/20130101200252/http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bl_Edison_Motion_Pictures4.htm History of Edison Motion Pictures: Litigation and Licensees]

* {{cite web |url = http://are.berkeley.edu/~sberto/EEP142Project.pdf | title = The Motion Picture Patents Company vs. The Independent Outlaws | author = Armando Franco | date = May 11, 2004 | accessdateaccess-date = 2010-09-02 }}