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 (1914)

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:
1914
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 5
Leaf #:
00071
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.

Petitioner's Exhibit Xo. 255. 2521 S it its for Infringement Filed. •'Suits have already boon brought in Chicago against George Kleine and the Kleine Optical company for infringements of the Edison film patent. The infringing films against which these1 suits are directed are imported motion pictures made by Gaumont and others and American pictures manufactured by the Biograph company. These suits will be pressed with the greatest vigor and brought on to hearing at the earliest possible moment. I confidently expect that injunctions will be secured by which further unlawful importation of these pictures will be prevented, as well as further manufacture of infringing films by the Biograph company. Will Sue Film Exchanges. "Of course, should such injunctions be granted, there would necessarily be a very large claim for profits and damages. We also purpose to bring suit against all the film exchanges in Chicago and elsewhere who may now be handling or may in the past have handled these infringing films, both foreign and otherwise; as well as against all exhibitors who may use them. Evidence is now being secured as to these infringing exchanges and exhibitors, and upon my return to Xew York I intend to promptly commence additional suits against them. I have been amused to note in the public advertisements that both Mr. Kleine and Biograph company have agreed to protect all exhibitors or film exchanges handling their films under the 'Biograph patents.' I am perfectly familiar with all the patents which have been granted to the Biograph company, but I do not know of any patent under which any protection whatever could be given. If there is to be such protection, I suggest that any exchanges or exhibitors who may decide to continue the infringing business might be protected more effectively in other ways than by mere newspaper statements. Anent the Latham Patent. "Some talk has been indulged in as to the so-called Latham patent on which the Edison company was recently sued in Trenton by the Biograph company. This patent has nothing to do with moving picture films, but relates to a detail in the construction of projecting machines. Such