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 000508 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 #:
000508
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.

33G0 Petitioner's Exhibit No. 272. Edison licensees own non-infringing cameras; and why accept Edison licenses if that be the fact? Does the answer rest in the necessity of finding some means to justify and validate the attempt to restrict the number of film subjects placed upon the market and to legalize certain other operations which would otherwise be considered as in restraint of trade? Some Edison licensees are attempting to deprecate the quality and volume of the Independent supply of films. The answer will be found in our four-page advertisement in this issue of THE SHOW WORLD. Sample prints of every subject can be seen at our Chicago office. We have a full stock of some in Chicago, while the balance is in transit, or about to be shipped from Europe. They will be released from day to day in such quantities as will not disturb market conditions for Independent exchanges, giving a continuous supply, rather than an enormous output within a limited period, thereby obviating a congestion and avoiding an oversupply at any one time. HOLDS PATENTS INVALID. Certain interests not generally known in the motion picture trade, wishing to obtain an opinion covering the validity of the Edison patents on films, empowered their patent attorney, John R. Nolan, No. Ill Broadway, New York, to make a thorough and impartial investigation of the merits of the claim. In a written opinion which is comprehensive and unbiased, lie decides clearly and unqualifiedly against the validity of the Edison patents. Several points are brought out by Mr. Nolan which have not been previously emphasized, and which will prove interesting to everyone concerned with motion picture films. I quote from his opinion : "In compliance with your request for my opinion as to the scope and validity of reissue patent No. 12,192, dated Jan. 12, 1904, to Thomas A. Edison, for Kinetoscopic Film, I have to advise you as follows: "I have examined the said re-issue; the original patent No. 589,108, dated August 31, 1897; the first re-issue No. 12,038, dated Sept 30, 1902, and the decision of the U. S. Circuit Courl of Appeals for the Second Circuit, involving the original patent.