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 5
Leaf #:
00054
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.

2504 PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT NO. 203. granted to him covering, first, the camera used for securing the pictures photographically, and, second, the motion picture films as a new product. These patents expire in August, 1914. We are advised by counsel that no practical and satisfactory camera can be used in this country that does not infringe the Edison camera patent, and that no motion picture film is now made that does not infringe the Edison film patent. Every motion picture film in use today, whether produced in this country or imported from abroad, is undeniably an infringement of the Edison film patent. Suit for Infringement. Upon the issue of the Edison patents, suit was commenced against a manufacturer of films for infringement of the Edison camera patent, and after many years of litigation and the expenditure of many thousand dollars, the suit was decided in our favor, and the patent was held to be infringed by the United States circuit court of appeals in New York. We are advised that this decision carries with it a substantial recognition of the Edison film patent, since the film is the product of the Edison camera, whose novelty and patentability have been judicially determined. Other Manufacturers in Field. During the litigation in question, numerous other manufacturers entered the field, which we were powerless to prevent, since it was first necessary that the original suit should be pressed to a final conclusion before others could be prosecuted with any probability of success. The business grew to very large proportions, film exchanges were inaugurated, and several thousand exhibitors sprang up all over the country. Two years ago motion picture shows were in great public demand, but at the present time they have fallen into disfavor if not actual disrepute. The reason for this change is not hard to find. Destructive and unbusinesslike competition among the exchanges in the effort to secure new business, involving the renting of reels below the actual cost of the service, has made it necessary to keep on the market worn-out and damaged films that have long since lost their usefulness.