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 #:
00090
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.

2540 Fred C. Aiken, Cross Examination. By Mr. Grosvenor: Q. Did you issue a bulletin to the trade announcing the result of the suit of the Edison Company against this man Rohlandson in Chicago? A. I am not positive that we did. We may have done so. Q. The balance of the article appears to give a copy of such a bulletin. Please examine that bulletin and state whether or not that is a copy of the bulletin issued by your Association. A. I think it is. Mr. Grosvenor: I ask that that bulletin be copied; that is, what has been identified by the witness as a bulletin — the part of that article beginning "To exhibitors of and dealers in moving picture films." The Witness: Mr. Grosvenor, if you have a copy of the original bulletin, I could identify it positively, but I could not positively identify that as being a correct copy of the bulletin. Mr. Caldwell : The receipt of that bulletin in evidence is objected to on the ground that the witness states that he cannot identify it. Mr. Grosvenor : He has not so stated. Mr. Kingsley : I object to the receipt of the bulletin in evidence, on the ground that it is incompetent, immaterial and irrelevant; not the best evidence, not binding upon these defendants; upon the further ground that it has not been sufficiently and properly identified by the witness, and that he has had no opportunity to compare it with the original, and does not know whether it is a correct copy. By Mr. Grosvenor: Q. Witness, you did issue a bulletin which contained an exact copy of the decree by Judge Kohlsaat against that exhibitor, is that not the fact? A. I think we did. Q. Now, look at that article and see whether that copy of the bulletin appearing there does not contain a copy of an injunction decreed against Christ Rohlandson?