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 #:
000100
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 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.

2550 Petitioner's Exhibit No. 250. is preparing and going along to sue the customers of this defendant broadcast all over the country, and advertising these suits in the trade press and public press for the purpose of intimidating and terrifying the trade of the defendant, so it can ruin its business before there can be any hearing on the merits of the case, notwithstanding they have made no effort to bring it to trial, and with the presumption of invalidity against its patent, based upon the decision of the Court of Appeals of the Second Circuit, to which I have referred. "There is no charge against Mr. Dyer, excepting as counsel. He has given out interviews, expressing his determination, and the complainant's determination, to sue everybody whom they claim may be infringing this patent, including all of these users of these films sold by this defendant, and any one else, wherever situated. No Bad Faith Charged. "There is no charge of moral turpitude or bad faith or anything else against Mr. Dyer, and the references in the petition are almost entirely quotations of formal statements given out by Mr. Dyer, who poses as the advertising counsel as well as the court counsel for the complainant, respecting the intention of the complainant to bring the suits, stating that suits have been brought against the Kleine Optical company, and more are to follow against its customers, and against anybody using any films excepting those supplied by the complainant. "I insist that this is a matter of gravest emergency. Their advertisements are going out all the time. This new circular that has just been printed, dated the day this order was made, sets forth a consent decree, not referring to the fact that it was a consent decree, against one of these defendants, entered by your Honor some weeks ago, as an adjudication upon the merits of the suit and the merits of this patent." Mr. Oifield : "Do you mean to say that the defendant sent this circular out?" Mr. Rector : "I do, sir." Court Reads Bulletin No. 15. Judge Kohlsaat was here handed Bulletin No. 15, issued