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 #:
000194
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.

812 Lewis M. Swaab, Direct Examination. Q. Now, continue. Mr. Kingsley: I repeat the objection. A. He told me if I would buy some goods that day, it might be of great use or interest to me later on. Q. After this interview with this Berst representative, you may state whether or not you saw Mr. Berst in New York? A. I did. Q. Shortly after? A. Yes, sir. Q. Where did you see him? A. In his office. Q. Who else did you see there? A. This same gentleman. I cannot recall his name. I would know it if I heard it. It is a foreign name. Mr. Berst took him and I out to lunch that day, and we returned to the office and talked over business matters. Q. Now, was anything said by Mr. Berst about the sale of your business to the General Film Company? A. He asked me if I had been down to see Mr. Waters. I told him no, I did not think Mr. Waters wanted to see me — Mr. Kingsley: I object to any conversation that the witness may have had with Mr. Berst, as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial, hearsay, and not binding upon any of the defendants except Berst. The Witness: I wanted to tell it in my own way. He sent me down to see Mr. Waters, of the General Film Company, at No. 10 Fifth Avenue. By Mr. Grosvenor: Q. Did you go down there? A. I did. Q. And whom did you see there? A. I saw Mr. Waters, who subsequently introduced me to Mr. Kennedy. Q. What talk did you have with Waters first? Mr. Kingsley: I object to any conversation between the witness and Mr. Waters, as it is not shown that he is an officer of any of the defendants and as incompetent, immaterial and irrelevant, and not binding upon any defendant in this case.