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 000162 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 #:
000162
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.

780 J. L. Carlton, Direct Examination. Q. Did you have any position there at the plant? A. Yes, general supervisor. Q. Did this Gaumont plant over here manufacture any positives in this country at that time? A. Of the talking pictures only. Q. That is, they manufactured the films for the talking pictures over here? A. Yes. Q. Prior to January, 1909, were some of those talking pictures exhibited in any of the theatres? A. Yes. Q. You may state whether or not Gaumont took out a license with the Patents Company in 1909? A. He did not to my knowledge. No. Mr. Kingsley: You mean by that you don't know? The Witness: Not to my knowledge. By Mr. Grosvenor : Q. Are you referring in your answer to these so-called talking moving pictures, or to the moving picture films imported by the Kleine Optical Company? A. Both. Q. Do you know whether or not Gaumont took out a license respecting the foreign films which were imported by the Kleine Company? A. I believe that the license was granted to the Kleine Optical Company. Mr. Kingsley: I move to strike that out on the ground that the witness is answering without knowledge of the fact. By Mr. Grosvenor : Q. Prior to 1908 were motion picture films sold generally in the United States? A. I believe so. Q. Were they sold as patented articles? Do you know or don't you? A. I don't think so. Mr. Kingsley: I object to that and move to strike it out as being a conclusion of the witness. Evidently a guess. The Witness: I sold pictures prior to 1908, which were not sold as patented articles.