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 #:
000104
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.

2554 Petitioner's Exhibit No. 259. to such a decree, and then to advertise those consent decrees throughout these same trade papers as bona fide adjudications of the validity of this patent, and of its infringement by the films sold by the Kleine Optical company." The matter of Bulletin No. 15 was again gone into at length, counsel stating: "That bulletin has not only been circulated in great quantities, but has been published in the trade papers, after our last meeting here," exhibiting to the judge THE SHOW WORLD and other papers. Continuing, he said: Bulletin Signed by Complainant. "At the former preliminary hearing before your Honor the complainant's counsel sought to disclaim responsibility for that bulletin, which was brought to your Honor's attention at that time; but I call your attention now to the fact that the bullein is signed by the complainant company. How the complainant can seek to disclaim responsibility for the publication of a bulletin signed by itself I do not know." After referring to the various advertisements which have appeared, including that of Pathe Preres, mentioned above, Mr. Rector said: "There has been a systematic campaign of intimidation carried on by this complainant, seeking to terrify the customers of this defendant and users of these films, and so frighten them that they would discontinue purchasing films from the defendant." Mr. Rector again called attention to the fact that in the Schneider suit, which had not been brought to final hearing although the proofs of the defendant were closed two years ago, and to the case at bar, contending that if the complainant was desirous of a speedy hearing it could have had it. Dyer Argues for Edison. The answer of the Edison Manufacturing company to the rule to show cause why an injunction should not be granted was read by Mr. Dyer, in substance as follows: The re-issue of the letters patent in two parts is set forth, and the suits against the Biograph company thereunder, aliening that the same have been pressed as vigorously as possible