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 2
Leaf #:
000181
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:
June 13, 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.

James L. Carlton, Cross Examination. 799 Mr. Dwight MacDonald, appearing for Mr. Row 1 land. Mr. John Hill Morgan, specially appearing for the Kinemacolor Company of America. Thereupon JAMES L. CARLTON resumed the stand. Cross examination by Mr. Kingsley: Q. I think you said yesterday, Mr. Carlton, that since you have been in the business there has been marked improvement in cameras and projecting machines? A. Yes, 2 sir. Q. And the style and detail of those have changed from year to year, have they not? A. Not in basic principle. Q. What I said was the style changed, and the detail has changed, from year to year? A. Yes, sir. Q. So that some changes and some reconstruction were necessary? A. Yes, sir; there has been a considerable number of changes in facilitating operation, and that sort of thing, supernumerary changes. These changes have arisen more or less from reconstruction. Q. I think you said the same basic principle still ap 3 plied? A. Yes, sir. Q. The machines are heavier and more durable than when you began business? A. Yes, sir; considerably. Q. And in some cases more expensive, are they not? A. Yes, sir. Q. Are you familiar with the types of projecting machines in common commercial use to-day? A. Yres, sir. Q. Do you know of any type of projecting machine in common commercial use to-day in this country that has an intermittent motion of the film that does not use a shutter which obscures the light during all, or a greater portion, of 4 the time during which the film is being moved from picture to picture? A. I do not. Q. There is no such machine that you know of in this country? A. I have never seen any, and I don't believe such a machine is practical. Q. Do you know of any commercial iype of projecting machine in common commercial use in this country to-day, that has an intermittent movement of the film, that does not have a shutter that interrupts the light one or more times during the time while the film is at rest? A. No.