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 000303 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 #:
000303
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. 921 Q13. As counsel for that company you would have known if any suit had been brought against them? A. Yes, sir. Q14. Do you remember attending a meeting of representatives of the Edison M'fg. Co., at the Auditorium Annex in Chicago, in March, 1908? A. I remember a visit I made to Chicago in the Spring of 1908, and I think it was in March. Q14. You made similar public statements at that meeting, to reporters with reference to the Latham Patent, did you not? I mean, similar or of the same general character as those contained in this published interview of yours in the Show World of April 4th, 1908? Mr. Page : Objected to as wholly irrelevant and immaterial. A. I am not able to say, but it is not unlikely, because at that time we were just starting the Licensee Association under the Edison patents and naturally were disposed to minimize the value of any other patents. Direct Examination Closed. Defendant's counsel offers in evidence the article referred to by the witness published in The Show World of April 4, 1908, and it is marked Defendant's Exhibit, Dyer Interview and Show World of April 4, 1908." Signature waived. No Cross Examination. Deposition Closed. Mr. Grosvenor: The record should show that this testimony is taken from the printed volume in the case stated. Mr. Kingsley: I object to it also on the ground that it is not the best evidence. That it is not proved here by the stenographer who took the testimony. Mr. Grosvenor: I also offer on the same theory, the interview given in the Show World, and from the