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 000512 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 #:
000512
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.

490 William H. Swanson, Cross Examination. of suit. I understand, however, that the New York attorneys did accept service for me. I never had any experience whatever with, it. Q. That is your explanation of that? A. Yes, sir. Q. That suit was for unfair competition in imitating its projecting machines, was it not? A. I haven't any idea what the suit was about. Mr. Grosvenor: Whose projecting machine? Mr. Willis : Edison's. By Mr. Willis: Q. As a matter of fact, there was a consent decree passed in that case, and an injunction issued, restraining you, was it not? A. That, I have not any knowledge of. In fact, I was just informed of by my attorneys yesterday, that that suit was still pending. Wanted to know what I was going to do about it. Q. Don't you know, as a matter of fact, there was a permanent injunction issued in that suit? A. I believe there was, but I haven't any knowledge of it. Q. What makes you believe there was? A. A matter of rumor. Trade paper discussion, and so forth. Q. You had lawyers out there in Chicago to enter their appearance in the case, didn't you? A. No, sir. Q. I thought you said your lawyers admitted service in tli at case? A. Messrs. Kenyon & Kenyon in New York. Q. Well, you had lawyers, then, in New York who admitted service for you, didn't they? A. They say they did. I just learned it yesterday. Q. And they told yon there was a permanent injunction issued? A. No, sir. Q. Who did tell you? A. Nobody. Q. How did you learn it? A. I say, through rumors and reading trade papers about that period, that time. Q. Don't you pay any more attention to injunctions than that? A. I did not go hunting it up. Q. And that time weren't you making a projecting machine yourself? A. No, sir. Q. Didn't you have associated with you a gentleman by the name of Mitchell? A. T did. Q. He was a co-defendant in that case to which I have referred, wasn't he? A. I don't know.