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 #:
000232
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:
May 23, 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.

210 Harry N. Marvin, Direct Examination. Q. As President? A. As President. Q. What position did he hold with the Motion Picture Patents Company? A. He was Treasurer of the Motion Picture Patents Company. Q. George Kleine. What was his position in the moving picture business? A. He had a personal license from the Motion Picture Patents Company to import motion picture films. Q. He was one of the nine original licensees of the Patents Company? A. Yes. Q. Seigmund Lubin. What was his connection? A. He was President of the Lubin Manufacturing Company. Q. One of the original licensees? A. Yes. Q. Of the Patents Company? A. Yes. Q. And was he a stockholder in that company? A. Of which company? Q. The Lubin Company? A. He was President of that company. I do not know whether he was a stockholder in it or not. Q. Frank L. Dyer. What company was he connected with? A. He was connected with the Edison Company. Q. In what capacity? A. I do not knoAV his exact capacity. Q. Was he connected with the Patents Company? A. He was. Q. In what capacity? A. lie was President at that time. Q. Jacques Berst. What was his position? A. He was connected with Pathe Freres. I do not know just what his connection was. I think he was Vice-President. Q. A man active and prominent in the business of Pathe Freres? A. Yes. Q. What is his position to-day, besides his connection with Pathe Freres, which he still retains? A. Well, I understand that he is still a Director of the General Film Company. Q. Samuel Long. What was his company? A. The Kalem Company. Q. Was he an officer of that company? A. I think he was President of that company. Q. The Pathe and Kalem Companies were both licensees of the Patents Company? A. They were.