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)

Page scan 00079 from 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 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 6
Leaf #:
00079
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 12, 2024
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.

Defendants' Exhibit No. 164. 3111 (Docket of Dyer & Dyer.) U. S. CIRCUIT COURT, Northern District of Illinois — Northern Division. On Patent 589,168 Thomas A. Edison, vs. Sears, Roebuck and Co., a corporation or V In Equity ganized and existing under the laws of the State of Illinois, and having a place of business in the City of Chicago, in said State. Complainant's SoPr, Isham, Lincoln & Beale, 718 The Temple, Chicago, (Dyer, Edmonds & Dyer, of Counsel). Defendants' Solicitor, Messrs. Offield, Towle & Linthicum. 1900. April 27 Bill forwarded to Messrs. Isham, Lincoln & Beale. " 30 Bill filed and subpoena issued. Subpoena filed p. s. Appearance entered for defts. by Messrs. Offield, Towle & Linthicum. July 2 Answer filed. " 30 Replication forwTarded. Aug. 6 " filed. Oct. 23 Stipulation extending time for taking prima facie proofs until Jan. rule day. 1901. Jan. 3 do. do. until March Rule day. Feb. 25 do. do. " June " " June 3 do. do. " Aug. " " Aug. 5 do. do. " Oct. " " Oct. 7 do. do. " Jan. " " 1902 Dec. 27 do. do. " Apr. " " 1902 1902. May 12 Order entered dismissing bill at complainant's costs without prejudice (reciting that costs have been paid) and discharging bond filed as security for costs.