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 000105 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 #:
000105
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. 1G4. 3137 {Docket of Kerr, Page & Cooper.) UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT, Southern District of New York. Thomas A. Edison, vs I In Equity, No. 8,914. No. 12,192. 2 Eberhardt Schneider, doing business as ) Suit on Edison American Cinematograph Co. and Ger \ ^,Bf»™atent man-American Cinematograph and Film Co. 1904. Nov. 23 Bill filed and subpoena issued. 1905. Jan. 2 Appearance for deft, entered by Herman Herst, Jr. Feb. G Stipulated that deft, may have until March Rule Day to file Answer. Men. G Answer filed. April 3 Replication filed. July 3, 5 Met by agreement and deposition of Henry W. Carter, for complainant, taken. Nov. 2, 3, 4 Met pursuant to agreement and examination of William Main, for Defendant, begun. Further proceedings adjourned to November 10th, 1905. " 10, 11 Examination of Prof. Main continued and adjourned to date to be agreed upon. Dec. 11, 14 Met pursuant to agreement and examination of Prof. Main continued and adjourned to meet on notice. 1906. Feb. 2, G Met pursuant to agreement. Examination of Prof. Main continued and concluded. Feb. 6 Parties stipulated on record that if Thomas A. Edison, C. H. Kayser, F. P. Ott and J. F. Randolph were called as witnesses in this case they would testify as they did in the case of Edison rs. American Mutoscope k Biograph Co. Defendant's case closed.