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 #:
000540
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.

339! Petitioner's Exhibit No. 276. Mr. Grosvenor : I also introduce in evidence a list of the suits brought under the Pross Patent No. 722,382, by the Motion Picture Patents Company, between June 14th, 1909, and July 15th, 1911. The same is received in evidence and marked "Petitioner's Exhibit No. 276/' and is as follows : Petitioner's Exhibit No. 276. SUITS BROUGHT UNDER THE PROSS PATENT, NO. 722,382, BY THE MOTION PICTURE PATENTS CO., BETWEEN JUNE 14, 1909, AND JULY 15, 1911. ACTION. COURT. DATE. Motion Picture Patents Co. vs. Viascope Mfg. Co. Motion Picture Patents Co. vs. Anera Theatre Co. Motion Picture Patents Co. vs. Automatic Vaudeville Co. Motion Picture Patents Co. vs. J. Wesley Rosenquest Amusement Co. Motion Picture Patents Co. vs. William N. Swanson trading as Wm. N. Swanson & Co. Motion Picture Patents Co. vs. The Madison Amusement Co. Motion Picture Patents Co. vs. Leon O. Mumford Motion Picture Patents Co. vs. David Newman Motion Picture Patents Co. vs. Carl G. Harig and Sylvester G. Staylor, trading as Cupid Amusement Co. U. S. Cir. Ct, July 14, 1911 No. Dist. of Ills. U. S. Cir. Ct, July 15, 1911 So. Dist. of New York do July 15, 1911 do July 15, 1911 U. S. Cir. Ct., July 15, 1911 No. Dist. of Ills. U. S. Cir. Ct, July 15, 1911 So. Dist. of New York U. S. Cir. Ct, July 15, 1911 Dist. of N. J. U. S. Cir. Ct, July 15, 1911 Dist. of Maryland do July 15, 1911 Mr. Kingsley: I object to both of these, on the ground that they are incompetent, immaterial and irrelevant. Mr. Grosvenor : There is no objection that the list is not properly proved? Mr. Kingsley: No. Mr. Grosvenor: I also offer in evidence the Opinion of the Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, August 10th, 1912, in the case of Motion Picture Patents Company against The Independent Moving Picture Company of America, 200 Federal Reporter, ill, this Opinion being on the Latham patent, and having been referred to in the testimony of sev