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 #:
000102
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.

2552 PETITIONER'S Exhibit No. 259. Holds Licensees Responsible. Judge Kolilsaat: "Yes. When they combine that wayit is very easy for the attorney to get somebody else to do it, and the only way the court can reach these matters and do justice is to hold them for it. "If you stipulate that there shall be no other suit begun until application for the preliminary injunction is heard in this case, probably there is no need of entering the order. I don't want that to be advertised, either." Mr. Offield : "They will shout this all over the country, that we have been enjoined, and they are perfectly bomb proof, and that is what they want here. I want Mr. Dyer to come out here and argue his own case on this proposition." Judge Kolilsaat: "Have you got any case pending here that you can bring to an issue on preliminary application? You are rather accused of commencing suits and letting them hang up." Mr. Rector: "There has been a suit pending on this patent for practically four years past, in which the defendant's proofs were closed more than two years ago. In this case here against the Kleine Optical company the defendant entered its appearance the day after the bill was filed, and filed its answer on the following rule day, and the complainant could have had that case at issue nearly a month ago, if it was desirous of expediting the cause. We are quite willing that your Honor shall make any order expediting this cause to a hearing. Offield Knows No Reason. Mr. Offield : "So am I. I don't know anything about it. I don't know any reason about that suit down there. There may be good reasons, just the same as for the circular. These parties, that they profess to represent, for whom they ask your Honor to issue an injunction against suit, have taken advice upon that matter and believe that patent is valid, and have made settlement." Judge Kolilsaat : "If the ad. said that it was by agreement it would be different. The order will be entered as follows : Motion for restraining order continued until such time as motion for preliminary injunction is heard. Counsel for complainant stipulates that no new suits shall be brought against customers of the defendant petitioner until the hear