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 000301 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 #:
000301
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.

Dyer Interview. 919 the ground that it is incompetent, immaterial and irrelevant, that it does not refer to the issues embraced in this action, that it is not the best evidence, that the only method of proving anything in this action regarding expressions of opinion on the part of Frank L. Dyer that should be followed by the petitioner, is to call Mr. Frank L. Dyer himself. Mr. Caldwell : I object also on the further ground that these defendants are not chargeable with that as an admission against interest, as it is not shown that Mr. Dyer had any authority to so charge them, and on the further ground that he has not been called as a witness in this case, and therefore cannot contradict any evidence that he has given, in this case. Mr. Kingsley: I wish to add to my objection the further objection that this is an abuse of proceeding. That Mr. Dyer is available as a witness, and within reach of the court, and that he should be called in reference to any statements that he may make, or may have made, and be given an opportunity to explain the same and to be cross examined relative thereto. Mr. Grosvenor: I want it distinctly understood that this testimony of Dyer is not introduced as independent evidence, but merely under the theory of admissions. Mr. Kingsley : And I wish to further object on the ground that any admission that may have been made by Mr. Dyer at any time cannot bind any of these defendants, with the possible exception of himself. The paper offered is marked Petitioner's Exhibit No. 172 and is as follows : Petitioner's Exhibit No. 172. (28. I show you the issue of the publication "Show World" dated April 4, 1908, and call your attention to an article on page 11, under the heading "Edison Counsel Talks of Moving Picture War." I notice that this article headed as above and also "Orange, N. J., March 28th" purports to give a statement of Frank L. Dyer, general counsel for the Edison Mfg. Co. to a Show World representative. Are you the Frank L. Dyer who gave this interview with the repre