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 000300 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 #:
000300
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:
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.

918 Dyer Interview. is material and necessary to answer, denies all and all manner of things in the said bill alleged which are not hereinbefore answered unto; and it prays the same benefit of the several matters and things hereinbefore alleged and set forth, as if by reason thereof it had demurred or had pleaded to the said bill; and it prays to be hence dismissed with its reasonable costs and charges herein most wrongfully sustained. KLEINE OPTICAL COMPANY, By George Kleine, President. Rector, Hibben & Davis, Solicitors for Defendant. Kerr, Page & Cooper, Counsel for Defendant. State of Illinois, \ County of Cook. J S* George Kleine, being duly sworn, deposes and says: I am president of the Kleine Optical Company, the defendant above named. I have read the foregoing answer and know the contents thereof, and the same is true of my own knowledge, except as to matters and things therein alleged to be stated on information and belief, and as to those I believe it to be true. (Signed) George Kleine. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 2d day of April, 1908. Louis B. Erwin, Notary Public, Cook County, Illinois. Mr. Grosvenor: I also introduce as admissions, in order to show prior inconsistent statements made by the defendants in this case in regard to these patents, the testimony of Frank L. Dyer, February 27th, 1911, in the case of Motion Picture Patents Company, complainant, against the Independent Moving Pictures Company of America, defendant, said suit being on the Latham Patent No. 707,934; the testimony offered being page 1G9, Question 8; pages 170 and 171. Mr. Kingsley : I object to the introduction of what purports to be the evidence of Mr. Frank L. Dyer, on