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 2
Leaf #:
000289
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.

Kleine's Answer. 907 II. The defendant has no knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to whether the complainant ever was or is a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New Jersey, or having its principal place of business at West Orange, in the said State, and leaves complainant to make such proof thereof as it may be advised is material or necessary. III. This defendant admits that letters patent of the United States for alleged new and useful improvements in Kinetographic Cameras were issued to Thomas A. Edison, bearing date the 31st day of August, 1897, and numbered 589,168; but denies, in manner more specifically hereinafter set forth, that the said Thomas A. Edison was the first, original and sole inventor of the said alleged new and useful improvement in Kinetographic Cameras described and claimed in the said letters patent; and denies that the said alleged improvement had not been known or used by others in this country, nor patented or described in any printed publication in this or any foreign country, before his invention thereof, and denies that the said alleged improvement had not been in public use or on sale in this country for more than two years prior to his application for the said letters patent, and denies that the said alleged improvement had not been abandoned by the said Edison. IV. This defendant, further answering, denies that in making the said application for said letters patent the said Thomas A. Edison complied with all the necessary conditions and requirements of the Statutes of the United States in such cases made and provided, and denies that the said letters patent were executed in due form of law, as alleged in the said bill. V. This defendant, further answering, admits that the said letters patent were surrendered to the Commissioner of Patents, and that reissued letters patent No. 12,038 were issued to the said complainant on the 30th day of September, 1902, as alleged in the bill of complaint; but denies that the said letters patent No. 589,168 were inoperative or invalid by reason of a defective or insufficient specification, and denies that the alleged error, whether