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 #:
000108
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.

2558 Petitioner's Exhibit No. 259. ticularly willing to consent to an injunction from taking advantage of that fact, which of course we will not do.'' In the memorandum of authorities, however, Mr. Dyer stated that while the courts look upon such action as reprehensible, it is more or less irrelevant. Continuing, he said : "I think with the exception of this particular bulletin, which we absolutely disapprove of, your Honor will find that the merits are decidedly with us. The statements are conservative and fair. On the other hand, the defendant has issued false and misleading statements, which are calculated to injure the complainant." Attorney Discusses Profits. Mr. Dyer then argued that the Kleine Optical company made only small profits, and that the exhibitors were the ones who made large profits, some of them paying $25,000 to $30,000 rent, and they were the people naturally selected to recover substantial damages ; that the Edison Manufacturing company was willing to push its suits to a speedy hearing, and would do so ; that if the court was to grant an injunction the Kleine Optical company should be compelled to give a large bond, and that it should give to the Edison Manufacturing company a list of its customers, with additions from week to week, so that the Edison Manufacturing company could refrain from suing the Kleine Optical company customers, and stating further : "We believe that in any event the Edison Manufacturing company should not be enjoined from bringing suits against such of its licensees who have signed license contracts, admitting the validity of the patent, but who have broken those contracts, and are now obtaining films from the Kleine Optical company. As to those people we have an independent right of action, and against those particular defendants we believe we have a right to prosecute our suits." lAnthicum Discusses Exhibitors. Mr. Linthicum followed Mr. Dyer for the Edison Manufacturing company, and in reference to the exhibitors said : "These various fly-by-night concerns are exhibiting these films, and making large amounts of money, and are at present customers of the Kleine Optical company. Now, how can Mr. Kleine make himself responsible, if he would be re