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 000244 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 #:
000244
Language:
English
Collection:
Early Cinema and Government & Law
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.

862 William J. Anderson, Cross Examination. arisen? A. We were supposed to dispose of all the films that I had in my possession before they would give us that license. Cross examination by Mr. Kingsley: Q. Did you dispose of that film before you took the license? A. I did not, Q. Did you tell the Patents Company that you had disposed of it? A. I did. Q. But as a matter of fact, you still had possession of it? A. I sure did. Q. What did you do with it? A. I simply used it in conjunction with the business, the same as I done before. Q. After taking out the license in September, you continued using the film — A. (interrupting) : I did not take out any license. They simply granted it. I never paid any license to them, because they received the license through the exchange. Q. But after September 24th, you continued using your film as before? A. I sure did. Q. Is it not true that a portion of that old film which you had in your possession and which you were exhibiting as you traveled from place to place, was not made by any of the Patents Company licensees? A. Well, they were not made at that time. Q. Didn't you have so-called independent films in your possession at that time? A. I don't remember that. Q. You don't remember that? A. No. Q. You were the owner of the film, you say? A. I was the owner of the film, but whether or not I had bought any Independent film up to that time or not, I cannot remember. Q. Did you buy Independent film after September 24th? A. I sure did. Q. When did you buy this Pathe film? A. When did I buy Pathe film? Q. Yes. A. When Pathe first began to sell film in this country. Q. What year was that? A. About 10 years ago. Q. You had some of this Pathe film that you bought ten years ago, at the time that the Patents Company wrote you? A. I sure had. I have got some of it yet, Q. You say you had some of this Pathe film that you