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 #:
00075
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 No. 255. 2525 machines for exhibiting pictures, and those details are not used at the present time, so that their claim that they are granting licenses under their patents amounts to nothing at all. They have no patents under which they could grant licenses which would be of value to the exhibitor or exchange." J. A. Berst Gives His Views. J. A. Berst, American manager for Pathe Freres, of Paris, was asked by a representative of THE SHOW WORLD his reason for accepting a license from the Edison Manufacturing company, and why he recognized the validity of the Edison claims. "That was a very important matter for us to decide/' said Mr. Berst, "and there is a very good reason for our affiliation with the Edison interests rather than on the other side. "Before the patent on the camera was sustained by the courts our position in this country was about the same as others. We felt that we were free to sell pictures. When the patent was sustained it changed the entire situation, because we wanted to print and make films in this country, and we started a very important plant in New Jersey, which is now working. Cannot Use the Biograph Camera. 4vAt the same time the court decided on that patent, it also held that the Biograph Co. camera was not an infringement. Apparently things seemed equal, but not to us, for we knew perfectly well that we could not make a good film with the Biograph camera. It would have been impossible to make a certain special trick film with their camera. We had to employ our camera, and it was an infringement of the Edison patent. "Another reason was the fact that we were involved in litigation with the Edison company on the film patent, and that suit has not yet been terminated. We were represented by Kerr, Page & Cooper, who were the attorneys for the Biograph company, and were informed by these lawyers that if the Edison company was inclined to push this suit wry hard against us it could obtain a judgment in the higher courts within a year.