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 #:
000105
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. 2555 It admits that the proofs in the Eberhard Schneider case were closed on Feb. 5, 190G, but alleges that even before the closing of his proofs said Schneider had ceased infringing operations, or at least to a material extent, and that said Schneider lias not since resinned same. That the Kleine Optical company, or persons or corporations acting in concert with it, have recently concluded an arrangement under which efforts are to be made to force said Schneider snit to a final hearing; and complainant agrees to proceed with that suit, provided defendant will admit its privity therein and be bound by the results thereof. Complainant, however, wishes to avoid, if possible, the prosecution of a suit against an inactive defendant, unless the result, if favorable, can have some substantial effect. That under the said camera patent suit was brought against the Selig Polyscope company, which was not pressed until after the decision in the Biograph case, and on May 7, 1907, after argument, Judge Kohlsaat entered an injunction restraining Selig. Discusses Claims of Complainant. Complainant claims that it is impossible to make motion picture films without violating the Edison patent, and after the decision upholding the Edison patent all manufacturers in this country, with one exception, sought licenses from the Edison Manufacturing company, and were granted same. Between October, 1907, the date of the second decision sustaining the validity of re-issue letters patent in the camera, and March 1, 1908, when the said licenses became effective, complainant was endeavoring to bring about an amicable arrangement with such other manufacturers, under which they might be licensed, and for this reason refrained until on or about March 1, 1908, from bringing new suits under said re-issue letters patent on the film. Complainant further says that it has no knowledge that the parties mentioned in said petition of defendant against whom suits have been instituted by complainant are customers of the Kleine Optical company, and that moving picture films embodying the Edison patent are imported into this country in large numbers by, and may be obtained from, many other parties than said Kleine Optical company; that the Kleine Optical company is not a manufacturer of mov