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 000304 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 #:
000304
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.

922 Dyer Interview. record in the same case, namely, Defendant's Record, Volume 2, Exhibits, page 627, issue of the Show World of April 4th, 1908, referred to in the last exhibit, being the interview by Mr. Dyer, respecting which he testified as appears above. Mr. Kingsley: I repeat all the objections that I have made relative to the introduction of the alleged testimony of Frank L. Dyer with respect to the interview in the Show World of April 4th, 1908, now offered in evidence, and also object further on the ground that it is hearsay and not binding in any sense upon any of the defendants herein. The paper offered is marked Petitioner's Exhibit No. 173, and is as follows : Petitioner's Exhibit No. 173. DEFENDANTS EXHIBIT, DYER INTERVIEW AND SHOW WORLD OF APRIL 1, 1908. April 4, 1908. THE SHOW WORLD. 11 EDISON COUNSEL TALKS OF MOVING PICTURE WAR. Orange, N. J., March 28. — Frank L. Dyer, general counsel for the Edison Manufacturing company, upon being asked by a SHOW WORLD representative if he cared to make any further statement in reference to the moving picture situation, said: "My attention has just been called to a statement issued by Mr. Kleine and appearing in THE SHOW WORLD of March 21. I have nothing to retract from my original characterization of the Latham patent as 'a joke in the business/ The Latham patent was granted August 26, 1902, and according to the people who are now affirming its validity it has been infringed by everyone since that time. Why was it not litigated to a final hearing as was done with the Edison camera patent? Obviously, because its original owners thought so little of its validity that they did not care to incur the expense of a suit. "I have been familiar with this patent ever since its issue, and a gentleman very closely connected with the corporation by which it was originally owned is a very close personal