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 (1913)

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:
1913
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 1
Leaf #:
00033
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.

Harry N. Marvin, Direct Examination. 11 resentatives of the Edison Company, because they were not. Mr. Pathe and Mr. Gaumont, each of them considered the conditions existing in this country as being very objectionable. Q. Well, the object — A. (Interrupting) — and they endeavored to do something or another that would terminate existing strife. Q. That is between the two factions? A. I do not know anything about what they had to say to the Edison Company, or people, but they came to us and talked to us about the desirability of doing something of that kind. Q. That is to stop the warfare between the two factions, that was their object? Mr. Willis: Will you kindly let him go on and explain his answer. By Mr. Grosvenor: Q. That was the object of the conferences on the part of Pathe and Gaumont with you? A. It was to relieve mainly the menace of a legal warfare, and the likelihood of any concern being wound up at any time by any decision that might be rendered on the patents that would stop them. Q. When did you have your first conference or meeting with any of the Edison licensees prior to the formation of the Patents Company? A. In July, 1908. Q. And thereafter was there a series of conferences with the Edison people until the Patents Company was formed in September, 1908? A. Yes, there were subsequent conferences. Q. Then before the Patents Company was organized you had or it had been decided that these patents should be transferred to it, and that then it should issue licenses to these various manufacturers? A. We did not know the exact method by which the licenses were to be issued and litigation terminated until practically the conclusion of the negotiation. Q. And when was that conclusion? A. Well, I think the contracts arrived at their final form a few days prior to the 18th of December. Q. Now, on the 18th of December, you had a meeting at