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 (1913)

Page scan 000153 from 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 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:
1913
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 1
Leaf #:
000153
Language:
English
Collection:
Government & Law and Early Cinema
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 12, 2024
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.

Ex. 51, Statement by Biograph Co., Feb. 15, '08. 131 Q. Was it submitted for your consideration before it was 1 published? A. It probably was. Q. Who were your counsel? A. Kerr, Page & Cooper. Mr. Grosvenor : I offer in evidence at this time the statement identified by the witness yesterday appearing at page 112 of the issue of February 15, 1908, of the Moving Picture World, being Volume 2, thereof, which is marked Petitioner's Exhibit No. 54. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 54. 2 THE POSITION OF THE AMERICAN MUTOSCOPE AND BIOGRAPH COMPANY. "WE were urged to join the Edison-Pathe combination, but we refused. The Court of Appeals has twice repudiated the claims of Edison that he is the creator of the moving picture art, and has limited his patent to his own particular form of apparatus. The same court has also decided that our apparatus does not infringe the Edison patent, 3 We stand absolutely independent and protected by our own patents. WTe have largely increased our capacity and are prepared to regularly supply our own films and the films of the best foreign manufacturers in any quantity. We will, at our own expense, protect our customers from any form of patent persecution in connection with film supplied by us. Edison cannot obtain an injunction against any renter or exhibitor for the reason that his film patent has not been 4 adjudicated and a decision cannot be obtained in less than two years." H. N. Marvin, J. J. Kennedv." Mr. Grosvenor : I also offer in evidence the statement just identified by the witness at page 205, Volume 2, of the Moving Picture World, which is marked Petitioner's Exhibit No. 55.