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 #:
00098
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.

2548 Petitioner's Exhibit No. 259. other papers; also the advertisement of Pathe Freres, an Edison licensee, which contained the following language : "Don't fail to use Pathe Freres films, otherwise your business will be taken away from you." The petition then alleges that the bills of complaint which the Edison Manufacturing company was filing and threatening to file were printed in large numbers, and that the Edison Manufacturing company is preparing and intending in pursuance of its advertised purpose to bring a large number of suits against petitioner's customers in various parts of the United States and will frighten and intimidate petitioner's customers and induce them to refrain from purchasing petitioner's goods, to the great irreparable and unlawful damage of petitioner. Proceedings on April 28. A strong array of legal talent represented the parties. Edward Rector, of Rector, Hibben & Davis, Chicago, and D. W. Cooper, of Kerr, Page & Cooper, New York, appeared for the Kleine Optical company, and Mr. Offield, of Offield, Towle & Linthicum, Chicago, for the Edison Manufacturing company. Among the interested spectators were F. C. Aiken, vice-president of the Film Service Association, and John Hardin, Chicago manager of the Edison Manufacturing company. Mr. Offield asked that the matter be postponed, as the petition made charges against Mr. Dyer, and Mr. Dyer should have a chance to be heard personally on the subject ; that they had been unable to connect with him and advise him of the hearing in time for him to reach Chicago. Mr. Rector insisted that the matter was of grave importance, and should be heard; that Mr. Cooper had had no more notice than Mr. Dyer, and still he had arranged to be present; and that furthermore, since the serving of the notice and the rule of the court on the Edison Manufacturing company to show cause why a restraining order should not be entered, on April 24, the Edison Manufacturing company had gotten out and widely circulated a circular in reference to a consent decree which was entered by Judge Kohlsaat some weeks ago against one of the users, advertising it as an adjudication on the merits of the case, and sending it broadcast to intimidate the defendant's trade.