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 6
Leaf #:
00088
Language:
English
Collection:
Early Cinema and Government & Law
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.

3120 Defendants' Exhibit No. 1G4. 1 (Docket of Dyer & Dyer.) U. S. CIRCUIT COURT, Northern District of Illinois — Northern Division. On Patent 589,168. Thomas A. Edison, vs. 2 The Enterprise Optical Mfg. Co. and ) ^ 0^994' Frank McMillan, individually and as President and Manager of said Company. Complainant's Solicitors, Isham, Lincoln & Beale; Dyer, Edmonds & Dyer, Of Counsel. Defendants' Counsel, Banning and Banning. 1901. Sept. 14 Bill filed and subpoena issued returnable October 3 rule day. Subpoena served on McMillan as individual and for Company. Deposited $25 with Clerk for costs. Oct. 7 Appearance for defendants by Banning & Banning. Answer filed. Replication forwarded to Isham, Lincoln & Beale for filing. Stipulation extending times to take prima fade testimony until May rule day. Sept. 1G Order signed by Judge KoMsaat and entered providing for dismissal of 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 % $7.45, being unexpended balance of deposit for costs received by them from Clerk. U 19 a 2G 1902. Feb. 1