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 #:
000287
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.

George W. Bennethum, Cross Examination. 905 Q. And where was that located? A. A Delaware corporation, located at 23 North Ninth Street, Philadelphia, and transferred from Philadelphia to Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. Q. Then yon did have an interest in a business in WilkesBarre, Pennsylvania? A. I did. No theatre, though. Q. What yon meant was that you had no theatre there? A. I had no theatre. Q. How large an interest did you have in this rental exchange? I don't mean in dollars and cents. I mean in the proportion. Did you own half of it? A. Well, I don't think it was half. I think I owned forty-three per cent. I am not sure of the amount, though. Q. And this was an unlicensed exchange, was it not? A. Yes, sir. Q. And you were interested in this unlicensed exchange in Wilkes-Barre at the same time that you were showing licensed pictures in your licensed theatres? A. I became interested about two months before they cancelled my license in the theatres. Q. So you knew pretty well why you had been cancelled, when you wrote the letter, did you not? A. I did not, no, sir. Q. What projecting machine did you use in your theatres? A. At that time I used Powers No. 5 and No. 6, and I think Edison Model B. Q. That was in the licensed theatres? A. All the theatres. Q. In all your theatres? A. In all of my theatres, the same machine. Mr. Grosvenor: I want to introduce under the principle of admissions, and under the rules of evidence applying to admissions, in order to show inconsistent statements made by the defendants in this case, with statements heretofore made by them in other cases, the following: The answer of the Kleine Optical Company to the bill of complaint of the Edison Manufacturing Company, complainant, this suit being started March Gth, 1908, in the United States Circuit Court, Northern District of Illinois, by the Edison Manufacturing Company against Kleine Optical Company and George Kleine for infringement of reissued letters patent No. 12,192.