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 #:
000101
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.

Petitioner's Eniiibit No. 259. 2551 by the Film Service Association, which was printed in full in a recent issue of THE SHOW WORLD. While the Court was reading same Mr. Offield said : "It does not profess on its face to be sent out by the complainant. They are the licensees of the Edison Manufacturing company, who have great faitli in this patent, and I think they have a right to be protected under it. Your Honor will see that it states the following statement has been received at the office of the Association of the licensees of this company, and they sent this out. We knew nothing about it. They believe they had a right to send it out. "Every one of these parties against whom suits have been brought, while they say now that they are customers of this defendant here, they admit that these films can be bought in the open market in Europe or in this country, and such an order would practically be an injunction against those parties from buying films from anybody else except the defendant in this case. "The defendant is not a manufacturer, never manufactured a film and never will. The circumstances are peculiar here. We have the patent, and we believe that the re-issue has been granted by the patent office and founded upon the decision of the courts which made the re-issue necessary. Attacks Shiftless Individuals. "These parties that we are suing here — that these men call their customers — are the electric theaters all over the country. They are naturally shiftless individuals, who rent a store for a week or a month, or a few months, and all their apparatus, or property, which they have got is that represented by those moving pictures; and these gentlemen here breed this intimidation by going around to these men who have been using our films and soliciting their business, instead of buying those of the complainant, and from the other manufacturers in Europe and in this country." Mr. Rector: "I think when there are thirty or forty suits commenced there should be a stop to it until there is some evidence that these parties are infringers.'' Judge Kohlsaat : "In view of this circular I shall restrain them from commencing any more suits until such time as the court shall have passed upon the merits." Mr. Offield : "Is your Honor going to hold us responsible for the licensees?1'