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 #:
00043
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.

Fred C. Aiken, Cross Examination. 2493 bered Government Exhibit 54, Record, Volume I, page 131. Mr. Caldwell: These three articles are objected to, on the ground that they are wholly irrelevant and immaterial to any of the issues in this case, not binding upon any of the defendants in this case, one of them being an editorial merely, the other being entitled "The Platform of the Association' ; the third being a statement entitled "The Position of the American Mutoscope & Biograph Company." On the further ground that there is not a word in any of the three articles that tends in the slightest degree to discredit the witness, and that having been stated by the counsel as the purpose for which he offers the articles. Mr. Grosvenor: Yes, all this evidence is offered for the purpose of showing that the by-laws of the Association were adopted with the approval of the manufacturers. Mr. Caldwell: I would like you to point out a single sentence there that shows that. Mr. Grosvenor : The two associations were formed simultaneously — Mr. Caldwell: I call upon counsel now, while this is being offered in evidence, to point out a single paragraph or word in any of the three articles that indicates that the by-laws of this Association were submitted to, or approved by the manufacturers. Mr. Grosvenor: This all goes to show that the manufacturers and rental exchanges were working in harmony, and to contradict the testimony given by the witness, which was repeated today; that is, the questions and answers at the beginning of the cross examination. Mr. Caldwell: The questions that were repeated by him today, questions and answers, related only to the question as to who framed these by-laws, and nothing else. Mr. Kingsley: I object to the introduction of the articles offered in evidence, on the ground that they are incompetent, immaterial and irrelevant; that they are mere editorial declarations of the Moving Picture World; that they have no relation to the