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 #:
000103
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 Exhibit No. 259. 2553 ing of motion for preliminary injunction. Cause taken under advisement." By agreement of the parties the cause was set for Monday, May 11. Judge Kohlsaat explained that he expected the order carried out, and for that reason had inserted in the order "Cause taken under advisement," so that action might be taken if Mr. Officld feared that his clients might get away from him, and stating further, "of course, on the hearing the Court will not be disposed to take any undue advantage." Regarding enjoining the use of the circular sent out, Bulletin No. 15, of the Film Service Association, Judge Kohlsaat said: "If you repeat to Mr. Dyer the view the court takes of that it will be the same thing." Proceedings on May 11. On Monday, May 11, the parties again met before Judge Kohlsaat. the Edison Manufacturing company being represented by its general counsel, Frank L. Dyer, and Mr. Linthicum, of Offield, Towle & Linthicum. Edward Rector, of Rector, Hibhen & Davis, and D. W. Cooper, of Kerr, Page & Cooper, argued for the Kleine Optical company. In the court room were present F. C. Aiken, president of the Amusement Supply company, vice-president of the Theatre Film Service Association, and vice-president of the Film Service Association ; W. N. Selig, president of the Selig Polyscope company; Dwight Macdonald, secretary of the Film Service Association, New York; A. D. Flintom, of the Yale Amusement company, Kansas City; John Hardin, Chicago manager of the Edison Manufacturing company, and Warren A. Patrick, general director of THE SHOW WORLD. Mr. Rector again read the petition of the Kleine Optical company, and made the opening argument, reading at length from various decisions. In referring to the published statements of the Edison Manufacturing company to bring suits against all infringers wherever found, and push cases to a speedy hearing, Mr. Rector said : Mr. Rector Addresses Court. "The principal effort to bring any case to a speedy hearing seems to have been to secure a consent decree or two against individual defendants, who were induced to consent