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 #:
00070
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.

2520 Petitioner's Exhibit No. 255. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 255. FILM MAGNATES IN CHICAGO CONFERENCE; EDISON CO. ISSUES IMPORTANT STATEMENT. Leading Motion View Men Discuss Great Moving Picture Controversy — Strong Vieivs Expressed by Frank L. Dyer, General Counsel for the Edison Manufacturing Go. and J. A. Bcrst, American Manager for rathe Freres of Paris. An important conference was held at the Auditorium Annex, Chicago, by representatives of the Edison Manufacturing Company and manufacturers who are operating under the Edison licenses, last week. Among those who participated in the deliberations were William E. Gilmore, vice-president and general manager of the Edison Manufacturing Co., of Orange, N. J. ; J. A. Berst, American manager of Pa the Freres, Paris; W. N. Selig, president of the Selig Polyscope Co., Chicago; George K. Spoor, president of the Essanay Co., Chicago, and resident members of the Film Service Association. Frank L. Dyer, of New York, general counsel for the Edison Manufacturing Co , issued the following statement regarding the controversy over the patent situation in the moving picture business : "As is well known, licenses under the Edison Patents have been taken out by the principal manufacturers of this country. The patents have been recognized by these manufacturers as dominating the art and royalties under them are being paid. The claim has been advanced by the Biograph company that they can operate independently of the Edison patents because the Court of Appeals in New York decided that an early form of camera in which unevenly spaced pictures wore taken, was not an infringement of one of those patents. The suit against the Biography company did not involve the Edison film patent which covers all modern moving pictures, and in my opinion is infringed by all pictures manufactured in this country or imported from abroad. The American manufacturers who have signified their willingness to pay royalties under the Edison film patent would certainly not do so if they had not believed that the Edison patents were valid and had to be recognized.