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 5
Leaf #:
00029
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.

Petitioner's Exhibit No. 252. 2471) Q. Have you read the article? A. I have read most of it. Q. This article purports to give a list of the manufacturers and rental exchanges present at the meeting, and names you as representing the Theatre Film Service Company of Chicago. Were you present at the meeting? A. Yes, sir. Q. Were the various manufacturers who the article states were in Pittsburgh on Saturday and Sunday the 16th and 17th of November, at the Fort Pitt Hotel, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, to wit, American Mutoscope & Biograph Company, Messrs. Kennedy and Marvin; Edison Manufacturing Company, Alex T. Moore of New York, and Mr. Hardin of Chicago; Essanay Company, George K. Spoor, and G. M. Anderson; Kalem Company, George Kleine and Samuel Long; Kleine Optical Company, George Kleine; S. Lubin, S. Lubin and F. W. Singhi; George Melies, Gaston Melies; Society Italian Cines, I. W. Ullman and George F. Bauerdoy; Vitagraph Company of America, William T. Rock, Albert Smith and J. Stuart Blackton; Williams, Brown & Earle, J. Carrick, — were those individuals present there? A. Yes, sir, I think they were. Q. The article then gives a long list of the rental exchanges, naming the persons present as representing the exchanges named. Were those individuals present? A. A great many of them were — Mr. Kingsley : I object to this form of examination unless the names of the persons mentioned are spread upon the record. Mr. Grosvenor: I will ask the Examiner to copy this article, that is, the column giving the names. Mr. Caldwell: I object to the receipt of that article or any part of it in evidence, on the same grounds as I stated in objecting to the previous article or the advertisement from page 502 of that book, and also on the ground that the purpose of the offer, namely, to discredit the witness, is not shown at all or accomplished by this offer. It has no bearing whatever on the testimony of the witness, which was to the effect that these by-laws were prepared by this committee, the manufacturers were not members of the