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)

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 #:
000173
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:
May 23, 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.

Opinion on Camera and Film Patent. 151 son Company in this suit which they brought in 1908, against him, or the Kleine Optical Company after the drawing up and signing of the contracts between the Edison Company and the Edison licensees? A. I believe I did not. Mr. Grosvenor: I will introduce at this time, the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals of the Second Circuit referred to previously in the examination of this witness, being reported at 114 Federal Reporter, 920, as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 58. I also introduce the second opinion of the same Court already referred to in the testimony of the witness and which is at 151 Federal Reporter, 167, as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 59. I also introduce in evidence the decision of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, December 2nd, 1912, in the case of the Motion Picture Patents Company vs. The Chicago Film Exchange, as Petitioner's Exhibit No. GO. Said exhibits in the order stated are as follows: Petitioner's Exhibit Xo. 58. II. Edison v. American Mutoscope Co. On original Patent 589,168. Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. 114, Fed. Rep., 926. Before Wallace, Lacombe, and Townsend, Circuit Judges. Wallace, Circuit Judge. This is an appeal from a decree sustaining the validity, and adjudging the infringement by the defendant, of letters patent No. 5S9,168, for a kinetographic camera, granted to Thomas A. Edison August 31, 1897. The patent contains six claims; the first, second, third, and fifth being the only ones in controversy. The assignments of error challenge the validity of the claims, and contest the infringement of the fifth claim. The purpose of the patented invention is to produce