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 00087 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 #:
00087
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. 104. 3119 (Docket of Dyer & Dyer.) U. S. CIRCUIT COURT, Northern District of Illinois — Northern Division. On Patent 589,168 Thomas A. Edison, vs. In Equity. Edward D. Otis and N. M. Kent individu / No. 25,996. ally and as co-partners trading under the firm name and style of Chicago Projecting Company. Complainant's Solicitor, Isham, Lincoln & Beale (Dyer, Edmonds & Dyer, of Counsel). Defendant's Counsel, Banning and Banning. 1901. Sep. 14 Forwarded bill of complaint to Isham, Lincoln & Beale for filing. " 16 Bill filed and subpoena issued, returnable October rule day. Subpoena served on Otis (not served on Kent). Oct. 7 Appearance for Otis by Banning & Banning. " 19 Answer for Otis filed. " 26 Replication forwarded to Isham, Lincoln & Beale for filing. 1902. Feb. 1 Stipulation extending times to take prima facie testimony until May rule day. Sep. 16 Order signed by Judge Kohlsaat and entered, providing for dismissing bill without prejudice and without costs and discharging bond for costs. " 18 Copy of order discharging bond filed with National Surety Co. Nov. 4 Isham, Lincoln & Beale have credited to our account $7.45, being refund to them by Clerk of balance deposited for costs unexpended.