Start Over

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 #:
000110
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.

2560 Petitioner's Exhibit Xo. 259. countenance it. I think I had better restrain you from bringing any more suits until such time as you have an adjudication." Mr. Dyer: "Any users?" The Court : "Against Kleine's customers. " Mr. Dyer : "Will not the court protect us in any way — " The Court : "You have not protected yourselves." Mr. Linthicum next argued that such an order would be unjust, that these exhibitors, of whom there are probably 400 in Chicago alone, were moving around, changing about, and going out of business, and if the suit were decided in favor of the Edison Manufacturing Company it would be impossible to recover damages for them. Court Advocates Agreement. This elicited from the court the following statement : "How is it they are making so much money, then? I don't think I would carry on forty suits with no adjudication on the patent. I think I will let the injunction hold here, with a bond of 820.000. It is a bad situation, which has never before presented itself to me." After considerable argument on both sides it was agreed between the parties that no formal order would be entered to this effect, and that the suit against the Kleine Optical company should be brought to a speedy hearing, forty-five days being allowed to the complainants to take its proofs and an additional forty-five days for the defendant, and that the case should be brought to trial within ninety days; that in the meantime no suits were to be brought against the customers of the Kleine Optical company, but that the Edison Manufacturing company could institute suits against such of its licensees as had broken their contracts. Court Requests Reticence. The Court declared that he did not wish the proceedings to be used for advertising purposes. Upon the hearing on April 28 a similar remark was made by the court, and in deference to same THE SHOW WORLD refrained from publishing a report of that trial, although its representative was present. After the hearing on May 11, THE SHOW WORLD reporter stated these facts to Judge Kohlsaat, and further that if the Court was