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 #:
00089
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. 2539 By Mr. Grosvenor: Q. I show you an article in the Show World of May 2d, 1908, at page 13, entitled, "Film Service Association Announces a Victory in Edison Litigation. r Please read that article. Have you read the article? A. I have. Q. This article begins : "New York, April 27. — The Film Service Association" — Mr. Kingsley: I suggest now that you ask him if it refreshes his recollection. Mr. Grosvenor: "The Film Service Association has issued a bulletin to the moving picture trade announcing the service of — Mr. Kingsley: I object to the form of the question. Mr. Grosvenor : " — papers in the suit of the Edison Manufacturing Company against Christ Rohlandson, and the issuance of a decree in the United States Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illinois, in Chicago, favorable to the plaintiff corporation in this particular action. The bulletin, which announces the determination of the Edison Company to press all suits filed against certain defendants for alleged infringements of patents, reads as follows.'1 Did the Film Service Association issue a bulletin as stated here, to the trade, announcing the result of the suit of the Edison Company against this man Christ Rohlandson, in Chicago? Mr. Kingsley: I object to the question as improper in form, and improper in substance, not the proper method of refreshing the recollection of the witness. The Witness : I don't recall that, particularly. The bulletin. I presume it was issued. They issued a great many bulletins. Mr. Kingsley : I move to strike out the answer, on the ground that the presumption of the witness is not evidence.