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 #:
00079
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. 256. 2529 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 snch films and for an accounting for all the profits from such alleged infringement. George Klrinc Talks of Suits. In an interview with a representative of TIIE SHOW WORLD, George Kleine. president of the Kleine Optical company, said regarding the filing of the suits : "The object of the Edison Manufacturing company in bringing suits against owners of theatres is obvious to any one familiar with such practices. This mode of procedure is purely commercial,, and does not strengthen any pretensions to patent rights, and the purpose must be to annoy these men who are using films supplied by independent exchanges, rather than to prosecute the suits upon their merits. ••Every legitimate object along the lines of vindication of the alleged Edison patent claims could be realized and adjudicated by the prosecution of one suit against some defendant whose standing is material and important in the trade. A litigant does not secure a better footing in a court of justice by the promiscuous institution of suits, and the validity of the alleged patent claims will not be bolstered up by the number of suits filed. ••This filing of numerous suits covering the same subject matter makes it evident that they are attempting to drive users of independent films into the Edison circle by questionable methods. •'Most men dislike law suits, but there is a characteristic feeling of stubbornness in the average American which prompts him to resent such an attempt to compel him to violate Ids principles of independence. Proceeding is Commercial. "1 am firmly convinced that the Edison Manufacturing Co. is not imbued with a spirit of confidence in its claims covering films, and that this entire proceeding is purely com