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 000299 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 #:
000299
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.

Kleine's Answer. 917 the said alleged invention thereof by the said Edison, involve or require invention; that in view of the state of the art as it existed at the time it did not require the exercise of inventive faculty to devise and produce the devices described and claimed in said reissued letters patent, but merely the exercise of mechanical skill; and that the said reissued letters patent did not produce any new and useful result not already known to others and already in common use by others skilled in the art of photographing and reproducing representations of objects in motion. XVIII. This defendant, further answering on information and belief, says that the reissued letters patent here in suit are invalid for the reason that the same were unduly, unlawfully and fraudulently expanded and broadened during the proceedings in the Patent Office for the said reissue, the said Thomas A. Edison claiming in said reissued letters patent more than he was entitled to claim, and claiming an invention which was not included in the said original letters patent, the said reissued letters patent being unlawfully and unduly expanded and broadened during the said proceedings in the Patent Office with the object of covering improvements made by others subsequent to the date of the application for the said original letters patent and developments of the art subsequent to the date of the application for the said original letters patent. XIX. This defendant, further answering on information and belief, says that for the purpose of deceiving the public the description and specification filed by the said Edison in the Patent Office in connection with his said application for the reissued letters patent in suit was made to contain less than the whole truth relative to his alleged invention or discovery, and also for the same purpose the said application described and claimed an article of which the said Edison was not the first, original and sole inventor, and that the said reissued letters patent are therefore null and void. XX. And now this defendant, having fully answered all in singular those portions of the bill of complaint that 1 2