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 000348 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 #:
000348
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.

3 966 Hector J. Streyckmans, Direct Examination. relevant and immaterial, and being hearsay, and not binding upon the defendants. The Witness: Mr. Kleine finally agreed to enter the combination with his two brands of films. By Mr. Grosvenor: Q. Was there anything said that you recall about the reason for selecting the Gaumont and Urban films out of these ten, that is, to be imported by Kleine, out of the ten films which he had theretofore imported? Mr. Kingsley: Objected to, as leading, and incompetent, immaterial, hearsay, and not binding upon the defendants. The Witness: The reason that he was told to take Gaumont was owing to the fact that Gaumont was the owner of patents on a moving picture camera, which were regarded as valuable, and it was intended to hold in the combination. By Mr. Grosvenor: Q. You may state whether it was so stated to you by Mr. Kleine? A. It was. Q. And you may state whether or not Mr. Kleine stated that the same thing had been stated by any of the other manufacturers, and if so, by whom? Mr. Kingsley: I make the same objections. The Witness: Mr. Kleine stated that this had been told him by Mr. Dyer. By Mr. Grosvenor: Q. That what had been told him? A. That Gaumont had an independent and a non-infringing camera, and that they wished to bring the Gaumont Company into the combination in order that these valuable patents would not fall into the hands of the independents. Q. Do you recall whether or not anything was said in