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)

Page scan 000157 from 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 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 #:
000157
Language:
English
Collection:
Government & Law and Early Cinema
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 12, 2024
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. 135 witness, and not binding upon any of the parties, upon any of the other parties. Mr. Grosvexor: These exhibits are introduced in part as admissions on the part of the defendants controverting certain allegations in the answer. By Mr. Grosvenor: Q. Was there a man named George E. Van Guysling ever connected with the Biograph Company as Vice-President and General Manager? A. There was. Q. In the early part of 1907? A. I believe that was the date. Q. I show you a letter addressed to the Moving Picture World, and purporting to be signed by him on behalf of the company, being printed in Volume 1, of the Moving Picture World, at page 13 of the issue of March the 23rd, 1907, and I will ask you if that was a copy of a letter written by your company at that time? A. I have no knowledge upon that whatever. I was not actively connected with the commercial side of the company's business at that time. Q. Is Mr. Van Guysling now connected with your company? A. No, sir, he is not, and he has not been for many years. Q. He was at that time? A. Yes. Q. Where is he now? A. I have no idea. Mr. Grosvexor : I now introduce the letter referred to signed American Muto. and Bio. Company, George E. Van Guysling, V. P. & G. M., as Petitioner's Exhibit 56, subject to subsequent proof of its authenticity. Mr. Caldwell: Which is objected to as irrelevant, incompetent and on the further ground that it is immaterial and that its authenticity has not been shown.