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 #:
000109
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 Xo. 259. 2550 sponsible, for the damages that would accrue to this patentee, if the court were ultimately to sustain this patent, and to award a decree against these particular defendants, and the Kleine Optical company should make the patentee whole for the damages sustained and profits lost by the infringing use of these films? "This manufacturer sells these films, making a small profit on each transaction, and the user makes a large profit. It seems to me that this patentee should have the right to institute these suits for the purpose of preventing the running of the statute of limitations, for every day that goes by we lose the right to go back for damages. I am utterly unable to see of any practical manner in which this court can make this complainant whole as against these irresponsible and fugitive people who are making these enormous profits through the use of these infringing films." Says Complainant is Responsible. Mr. Cooper contended that the complainant itself wras responsible for this condition of widespread use, and for the running of the statute of limitations for four years for the reason that if it had pushed its suit against Schneider it could have had an adjudication at least two years ago, and that there was no adequate explanation for this great rush of suits at the present time ; and further, that the present suit had been filed for two months, and the hearing thereof not been expedited as rapidhT as circumstances permitted. Mr. Dyer then repeated his offer to finish up the Schneider case, if Mr. Kleine would accept that as an adjudication, and would abide by that decision, and not take advantage of the fact that the patent has not been adjudicated. Mr. Cooper said this was absurd, that he would waive no rights of his client, and insisted that he was entitled to interpose all defenses possible. Court Favors Injunction. The Court then said : "I don't believe the complainant lias the right to come in without an adjudication, and keep things in that condition. I don't believe that is fair, and don't believe any court should