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 #:
00057
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.

Petitioner's Exhibit No. 203. 2507 nature of the grant. Cries of restraint of trade and impairment of the freedom of sales are unavailing, because for the promotion of the useful arts, the Constitution and Statutes authorize this very monopoly." The same high Court in Rubber Tire Wheel Co. vs. Milwaukee Rubber Works Co. (154 Federal Reporter, 358), said: "Under its Constitutional right to legislate for the promotion of the useful arts, Congress passed the patent statutes. * * * * Congress put no limitation, except time, upon the monopoly. Courts can create none without legislating. The monopoly is of the invention, the mental conception as distinguished from the materials that were brought together to give it a body. * * * * Use of the invention cannot be had except on the inventor's terms. Without paying or doing whatever he exacts no one can be exempted from his right to exclude. W7hatever the terms, Courts will enforce them, provided only that the licensee is not thereby required to violate some law outside of the patent law, like the doing of murder or arson." See also: Edison Phonograph Co. et al vs. Kaufman, 105 Federal Reporter, 960. Edison Phonograph Co. et al vs. Pike, 116 Federal Reporter, 863. National Phonograph Co. vs. Schlegel, 128 Federal Reporter, 733. Will Enforce Its Rights. While, therefore, under our legal and constitutional authority as the owner of the Edison patents, conditions and limitations might have been lawfully imposed which would have been harsh and onerous, we have sought only to exercise our rights in the premises to the extent of enforcing such conditions as will inure to the best interests of the business. The conditions which we have imposed will without doubt, be of great advantage to the exhibitors as they will oblige the exchanges to give better service and will prevent them from renting films for more than a limited time. This is bound to mean a wonderful improvement over present conditions. The exchanges of this country (who have recently