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 4
Leaf #:
00030
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:
July 25, 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.

1880 James S. Blackton, Direct Examination. Q. Were you harassed by litigation during that period? A. Yes, continually. Q. When was it that you first discussed the possibility of obtaining a license from the owners of the camera, film and projecting machine patents or from a new company which might hold the patents, thus enabling you to proceed without fear of litigation? A. In the year 1907 I made a trip west, and on my return I stopped in Chicago and called on George Kleine, who was our agent for Vitagraph films. He was also the agent for the Edison films for Chicago, and the West. And we were then being very actively litigated against by both Edison and Arinat; and, I am not sure whether the Biograph Company suit had then been instituted, but I think not. I talked with Mr. Kleine about the situation. He was very desirous of continuing to sell our films, and I told him I didn't think we would be able to furnish him with film much longer. He also criticized the quality of our film, and compared the cheap scenery and properties in our pictures with the more splendid settings of the Pathe Freres films, and I explained to him that we dared not spend, and could not spend as much money in making our films as the foreigners, who had no litigation to fear, and in the course of our conversation, Mr. Kleine asked me if I would not like to meet Mr. Spoor, and Mr. Selig, who were then being sued as we were, and together with Mr. Kleine and myself, talk over the situation and see if there was not a possibility of our getting a license from the Edison Company. Mr. Kleine, being the Edison agent, and being very well acquainted with them, stated that he felt sure if he were to make a special trip to Orange to see Mr. Edison, personally, that the state of affairs which was so grievous at that time, could be terminated. This was in 1907. We met that same day in the afternoon at Hector's in Chicago. Mr. Grosvenor: What time of the year was that? The Witness : In the Fall of 1907. At that meeting, or at that lunch, the first thought of getting immunity from litigation by acknowledging the validity of the Edison patent and getting a license was discussed, and I was delegated to come on East and talk with my partners and