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 #:
00097
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. 259. 2547 of additional suits of the same character, against other customers of the Kleine Optical company. Charges Made in Petition. The petition then shows the claims of the Edison Manufacturing company on its reissued letters patent No. 12,192, in its bill of complaint, and of the answer of the Kleine Optical company (which were published in recent issues of THE SHOW WORLD), and charges that in November, 1904, a similar suit on such patents was filed by the Edison Manufacturing company against Eberhard Schneider in the United States circuit court for the southern district of New York, but the case had not been brought to a hearing, notwithstanding the fact that the said Schneider has continued throughout said period to manufacture and sell the films complained of in defiance of said patent. The petition then states that the Edison Manufacturing company has given wide publicity to the suits it has filed in both the public and the trade press, and has publicly and repeatedly, in articles which it has caused to be published in the newspapers and trade papers, threatened to bring suits against all persons dealing in or using films supplied by the petitioner, for the purpose of harassing and annoying and intimidating the petitioner's customers. Newspaper Articles Quoted. Articles appearing in the various papers are then quoted, including the Chicago Journal, Chicago Tribune, Chicago Daily News, Chicago Record-Herald, THE SHOW WORLD, and others, and the charge is made that William E. Gilmore, general manager, and Frank L. Dyer, general counsel, of the Edison Manufacturing company, came to Chicago and caused themselves to be interviewed by representatives of the press, and supplied them with prepared articles and interviews intended to give publicity to said suits, and to the additional suits threatened to be brought. Long articles which appeared in THE SHOW WORLD are quoted, with the allegation that same were reproduced in the metropolitan papers. The advertisement of the Edison Manufacturing company warning film users against alleged infringing films is then set forth, which appeared in THE SHOW WORLD and 1