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 000298 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 2
Leaf #:
000298
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.

916 Kleine's Answer. 1 1882, pages 909 to 911, inclusive, published at Paris, France, in 1882. An article contained in the same publication, vol. 107, October 15, 1888, pages 607 to 609 inclusive. An article contained in the same publication, vol. 107, for October 29, 1888, pages 677 and 678. An article contained in the same publication, vol. Ill, for November 3, 1890, pages 626 to 629 inclusive. An article contained in Wilson's "Quarter Century in Photography," page 493, published at New York, N. Y., in 1887. 2 XVI. This defendant, further answering on information and belief, says that said reissued letters patent No. 12,192 are void and of no force and effect for the reason that the said Edison was not the original or first inventor or discoverer of the alleged improvement therein described and claimed, or of any substantial and material parts thereof, and that the same was known to and used by others prior to any invention thereof by said Edison as follows, to wit: At San Francisco, Cal., Brooklyn, N. Y., and elsewhere within the United States, by Edward J. Muybridge, who resides at San Francisco, Cal. At Brooklyn, N. Y., and elsewhere within the United States, by W. G. Levison, who resides at Brooklyn, N. Y. At Orange, N. J., and elsewhere within the United States, by William K. L. Dickson, who is now residing at London, England. At Philadelphia, Pa., and elsewhere within the United States, by James W. Bonta, who resides at Philadelphia, Pa.; and others whose names and addresses are not now known to this defendant, but which this defendant prays leave to set up by an amendment to this answer when it shall have ascertained the same. XVII. This defendant, further answering on information and belief, says that said reissued letters patent No. 12,192 are void and of no force and effect because the alleged improvement attempted to be patented thereby did not, at the date of the said reissued letters patent, or at the date of the said original letters patent, or at the date of