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 #:
000280
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.

898 Lewis M. Swaab, Cross Examination. Mr. Grosvenor: I did not give him any instructions in the matter; he can answer or not on his own judgment. I object to the question as immaterial. Mr. Kingsley: I desire to have you, Mr. Examiner, read me what Mr. Grosvenor stated to the witness awhile ago. The Examiner: I will read the question you asked the witness, together with Mr. Grosvenor's statement, and the witness's statement. Thereupon the Examiner read the following: "Q. And how much did you sell your half interest for? A. Is it necessary to answer that question? Mr. Grosvenor: No, it is not. The Witness : I consider that my personal, private affairs." Mr. Grosvenor: Mr. Swaab, you understand that I did not give you any instructions? The Witness: I thoroughly understand that you have not. Mr. Grosvenor (addressing the witness) : If you have any doubt about it, you can consult with counsel. I give you no instructions in the premises, but I merely object to the question as entirely, wholly and absolutely immaterial, and as having no bearing upon any of the issues in this case, and being simply an inquiry into your personal affairs. Mr. Caldwell: I make this suggestion, Mr. Grosvenor: Why can't we go now before any District Judge that is available in the courthouse here, and who will hear us now, and have the question determined by him, and save time that way, instead of having the Examiner certify it to the Court in a more formal way. Mr. Grosvenor: That is a question that I am not interested in one way or the other. Mr. Caldwell : But that question does interest the defendants. M)r. Kingsley: There is no question about its materiality, because this witness has sworn he was