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 #:
000107
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. 2557 Appeals. That the Biograph company was given an opportunity of taking a similar license, which they refused to do unless placed on a more favorable basis than any other licensees. The affidavit denies the validity of the Latham patent. The affidavit of George F. Scull, employed in the legal department of the Edison Manufacturing company, was read, regarding the publication of various statements, and stating that he prepared Bulletin No. 15, but denies that it was meant to mislead. John Hardin, Chicago manager of the Edison Manufacturing company, made affidavit to the effect that films complained of can be secured from other parties than the Kleine Optical company, and a similar affidavit was made by D wight Macdonald, secretary of the Film Service Association, admitting that he sent out Bulletin No. 15 to the members of the Association and a few of the trade papers. Two Questions Involved. During the course of his argument, Mr. Dyer said: "In the ] 'resent case it seems to me that there are two questions involved, one commercial and the other legal. The commercial question is the question of the advertisements, the statements which are circulated. In every patent suit where a patentee is seeking to secure his rights there is bound to be more or less misrepresentation and exaggeration. That must be freely admitted The American advertising man finds it very hard to be conservative. Those statements, however, are very conservative. They are statements that any patentee might make, who believes that he has a valid patent, particularly a patentee who had not been able to have his patent sustained until eleven years after it was granted, and especially a patent with the moral support of every American manufacturer behind it, recognizing it." Disapproves of Ballet hi Xo. 15. In regard to Bulletin No. 15, Mr. Dyer said: "I absolutely disapprove of that, your Honor, and when the matter was called to my attention I was horrified to think that a statement of that kind should have been sent out ; and although that particular bulletin is no longer circulated I presume the effect has been done. But we are par