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 000106 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 2
Leaf #:
000106
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.

724 Louis Rosenbjajh, Cross Examination. not tell you just how those matters were taken care of. I know there were some denials, and I know it was taken to a higher Court. Q. You knew that it went up to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court? A. Yes, sir. Q. And you know that the decision of the Appellate Division was against you, do you not? A. I do not, sir. Q. You don't know that the Appellate Division held that the Patents Company had a lawful right to cancel your license? A. I don't know, sir, anything about that. I would rather not answer it. Q. Then are you going to be content that your answer stand as it is on page 372 — A. (interrupting) : Those are matters of record. Q. (continuing) : That you continued your business by means of injunction from December 25th, 1911? A. Will you repeat that question? Q. Are you content that your answer shall stand as it is found on page 372, that your business was continued pursuant to an injunction obtained in December, 1911, in the State Court? A. You mean that we were supplied with film due to that injunction? Q. That you got an injunction which was continued? A. I don't know just what you mean, sir. You said, whether our business was continued? We kept on doing business. I don't know whether we continued doing business just because of that injunction. Q. Do you mean to say that you do not know that your motion to continue that injunction was denied early in 1912 by Mr. Justice Bijur? A. I have heard of that; yes, sir. It was then taken to another Court, and there was another action started against another company. Q. No; I am speaking now of your action in the State Court. Don't you know that the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court affirmed the order of Justice Bijur denying your motion? A. I do not, sir. Q. Then don't you know that of the six Justices of the Supreme Court who passed upon your claim in that suit, they were all unanimous that you had no cause of action? A. I really did not know that, sir. Q. You made several affidavits in that suit, didn't you? A. I believe I made one.