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 #:
00082
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.

2532 Petitioner's Exhibit No. 256. Film Service Committemam Resigns. "I am informed that a member of the executive committee of the Film Service Association, finding his position irksome, and being hampered by the domination of the manufacturers licensed by Edison, has resigned as a committeeman and severed all connection with the Film Service Association, as well as the manufacturers affiliated therewith. "The statement has been made by an Edison licensee that Messrs. Kerr, Page & Cooper, who represented his company in previous litigation with Edison, had advised him that if Edison cared to push the suit vigorously a judgment could be obtained within a year. As this may give rise to the impression that our attorneys respected the validity of the Edison claims, I took up the matter with them, and quote from their reply as follows : 'We never advised that the Edison film patent was valid, and we never considered it valid.' Importance of Opinion. "Those who are familiar with the history of moving picture patents will appreciate the importance of such an opinion, as Kerr, Page & Cooper are, in my opinion, the ablest and best informed attorneys in America on motography, and, as the attorneys for the Biograph Co., have defeated Edison in every legal controversy between the two companies concerning moving picture cameras or film. "It is worthy of note here that in the second suit brought by Edison upon his reissue of the film patent these attorneys regarded the legal status of the claim so lightly that they did not interpose a defense, but entered a demurrer, whicli in legal parlance means that even if they admitted all the facts set forth by the complainant, he has no legal standing; and Edison withdrew his suit before a decision could be rendered. "Users of our films will be fully protected, and any exhibitor who is sued by Edison will be defended free of charge to himself. The Biograph Co. has assumed the defense of the various suits that are pending against owners of nickelodions." Scaver Discusses Lit i (jut ion. V. C. Seaver, of the Moving Picture Theater Protective