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 #:
00077
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.

Fred C. Aiken, Cross Examination. 2527 films. What is wanted are good films, such as Pa the, Edison, Yitagraph, Selig, Essanay, etc. For this reason we saw that if we adhered to Edison we would have everything on our side, including patent rights and good films, and on the other side would be nothing. "Our sales for the past two months have exceeded the same period since we have been in business, and from present indications the year's business will be phenomenal. ''Under our arrangements the manufacturers will make more money, the renters will make more, and the exhibitor will more than share in the prosperity, as he will receive better films which will increase his patronage enormously. " By Mr. Grosyexor: Q. I show you an article in the issue of the Show World of March 28, 1908, page 9, entitled "Edison Eires Second Gun in Film Battle. Injunction Suits Instituted Against Owners of Moving Theatres in Chicago. George Kleine Discusses Litigation/' Please read the first paragraph in that article. A. I have read the most of it. Q. This article begins: uThe Edison Manufacturing 3 Company of Orange, X. J., fired its second gun in the great film battle instituted in Chicago, by filing injunction suits on March 16, in the United States Circuit Court against seven owners of moving picture theatres. The defendants are William Marks, Joseph T. Dorgan, Christ Rohlandson, John II. Ferris, John Furis, Abe Mills and D. E. Mulvey. The bills contain the same allegations as in the suits filed against George Kleine, and the Kleine Optical Company, the complainant asserting that it is the owner of letters patent covering films, and that the defendants are making, using and selling infringing films. The complainant prays ^ for an injunction, restraining the defendants from further handling such films, and for an accounting for all the profits from such alleged infringement." Does that article refresh your recollection as to the bringing of these suits about that time, in Chicago, against the motion picture theatres? Mr. Kingsley: I object to the question as incompetent, immaterial, and irrelevant. I object to the form of the question, on the ground that it con