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 #:
000254
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 21, 2023
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.

872 Charles H. Balsley, Cross Examination. Mr. Grosvenor: I object to that question on the ground it is a repetition. Mr. Kingsley : Do you refuse to answer? Mr. Grosvenor : The witness has already stated he refuses to answer. Mr. Kingsley: I am not asking you, Mr. Grosvenor. The Witness : I prefer not to answer. By Mr. Kingsley: Q. Well, do you refuse to answer? A. Mr. E. S. Porter of the Famous Players. Q. What company is he connected with? A. The Famous Players Film Company. He was at that time with the Rex. Mr. Porter is an old schoolmate of mine. Q. When was it, Mr. Balsley, that you got this Pathe camera? At what time? The one you borrowed? A. I did not buy it. Q. The one you borrowed? A. Oh. Why, I think it was along about the 1st of May, 1912. Along about that time. I took the picture shortly after I got the camera, I know. Q. Did you ever write to the Motion Picture Patents Company in New York asking for a permit with respect to a Pathe camera? A. Yes, sir. Q. And did you receive in reply from the Motion Picture Patents Company a letter stating in substance that they refused to give you a license to use a camera embodying the inventions infringing upon inventions of their own? A. Yes, sir. Q. So that at that time, you thought it desirable to write to the Motion Picture Patents Company for a license? Mr. Grosvenor: I object to this, as this transaction now referred to upon cross examination is all considerably subsequent to the testimony given on direct examination, and relates to subsequent matters. Mr. Kingsley: It grows from it. Mr. Grosvenor: The witness has not shown it was prior, and my opinion is it was subsequent.