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 #:
000106
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.

255G Petitioner's Exhibit No. 259. ing picture films, but merely an importer thereof and dealer therein, and that it obtains no other profits than those derived from the sale or lease of the said films. That the persons sued by the Edison Manufacturing company for exhibiting or using moving picture films and who are alleged to be customers of the Kleine Optical company are for the most part without capital, and that unless suits are instituted against such persons and prosecuted actively the possibility of recovery against them will be very remote. Complainants admit that it has issued warning notices and letters to users of infringing moving picture films, indicating its intention to assert its rights under said letters patent, but complainant denies that it has threatened to bring suit against all persons dealing in or using photographic films supplied by the Kleine Optical company, and denies that it has selected the Kleine Optical company as an object of attack, as asserted in said petition. Complainant further says that the Kleine Optical company has issued from time to time threats and warnings of its intention to sue the users of motion picture films made by the Edison Manufacturing company, and has introduced in various trade papers false and misleading advertisements, all designed to annoy and harass complainant, and to deceive complainant's customers and those of its licensees, and to create the false and misleading impression that defendant owns or controls patents which are infringed by the sale or use of complainant's licensed motion pictures, and lias falsely and unfairly and maliciously represented to the public the effect of the favorable decision on said patent. Dyer Affidarit Read. The affidavit of Mr. Dyer was then read, in substance corroborating the statements in the foregoing answer, and stating: "It is true that the court found that the so-called 'Biograph' camera, originally used by the American Mutoscope & Biograph company, was not an infringement," but alleging that same is impractical and that the Edison camera is essentially the perfect apparatus for the purpose, and this fact was recognized by all the American manufacturers immediate1! v after the favorable decision of the Circuit Court of