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 #:
00051
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. 2501 Thereupon FRED C. AIKEN resumed the stand. Cross examination continued by Mr. Grosvenor: Q. Not only the Biograph Company refused to join with the other manufacturers in February, 1908, but also Kleine, and his rental exchanges, declined to join? Mr. Caldwell: I object to the question on the ground that it calls for a conclusion of the witness relative to what was done by the Biograph Company, and by George Kleine, and the remaining parties, with whom he was not associated, and regarding whom he can have no knowledge. The Witness: I know that they did not join with the others. By Mr. Grosvenor: Q. Then you know that Kleine and the Biograph Company did not join with the others? A. Yes, sir. Q. And immediately thereafter, that is, within a few days, or a few weeks more litigation occurred between the Biograph Company and the Edison people? A. Why, I don't know as to that. Q. When was this litigation respecting which you have testified to on direct examination? A. I don't know the exact date, but it was in Chicago, before Judge Kohlsaat. Q. That was the litigation you had in mind when you testified on direct examination, page 2331, Vol. IV : "Q. Was that litigation a matter of common knowledge in the business in Chicago at that time? A. I think it was. Q. Can you state whether, in fact, that litigation had any injurious effect upon the business at that time? A. So far as I was concerned, it did." Mr. Caldwell: That question is objected to on the ground that the witness testified to two definite periods of litigation, and the questions now read by counsel to the witness are indefinite in stating to which they refer. He testified to litigation in 1907, prior to the Edison license arrangement, and then 1