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 (1913)

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:
1913
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 2
Leaf #:
000623
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.

J. C. Graham, Cross Examination. 1241 Q. How long have you been interested in the Reliance 1 Company? A. Since I came to New York. Q. Well, I don't know exactly when you came to New York? A. Oh, pardon me; over two years. Mr. Grosvenor: I object to all this as immaterial and not having any relation to any question asked on direct examination, and going into new matter, and therefore questions which do not have to be answered on the ruling of Judge Ray. Mr. Kingsley: Judge Ray has not ruled on this particular question. " By Mr. Kings«ley: Q. Is the Reliance Company a manufacturer of independent films, and by that I mean independent motion pictures? A. Yes, sir. Q. Where is it located? A. 540 West 21st Street, New York City. Q. How long has the Reliance Company been a manufacturer of independent motion pictures? A. I could not state that definitely. 3 Q. Over two years, however? A. Yes. Q. And is actively competing in the market, is it not, at the present time? A. Do not misunderstand my former statement. I am simply a stockholder of the company. As far as I know, they are doing business today. Q. Are they actively competing in the market? A. Selling film; yes, sir. Mr. Grosvenor : Here are two letters I offer in evidence. The papers offered were marked by the Examiner * ''Petitioner's Exhibit No. 233,'' and "Petitioner's Exhibit No. 234/' respectively, and are as follows :