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 000349 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 #:
000349
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.

Hector J. Streyckmans, Direct Examination. 967 the Spring of 1908 as to the purpose of bringing these 1 suits against Kleine's customers on Kleine's own patent 12,192, which, as you know, is the film reissue? Mr. Kingsley: Objected to, as incompetent, immaterial and irrelevant, and, further, as not binding upon the defendants. The Witness: Do you mean what was said by whom? By Mr. Grosvenor : Q. By any of these manufacturers of motion picture g films? Mr. Kingsley : Objected to as incompetent, immaterial and irrelevant, and not binding upon the defendants, and as hearsay. The Witness : Mr. Kleine and I talked the matter over, and we decided that — Q. (interrupting) : I don't want you to state what you decided, but my question is, Do you recall whether or not anything was said by Mr. Kleine or by these other manufac 3 turers, defendants here, as to the purpose of bringing those suits against Kleine and his customers in the Spring of 1908? A. Mir. Kleine stated to me that a multiplicity of these suits — Mr. Kingsley (interrupting) : Was Mr. Kleine a defendant in those suits? The Witness: Yes, sir. Mr. Kingsley : Then I object to anything that Mr. 4 Kleine may have said respecting suits brought against him. By Mr. Grosvenor: Q. And is Mr. Kleine a defendant in this suit? A. Yes, sir. Mr. Kingsley : And I further object to it because* the statement of Mr. Kleine is not binding upon the defendants in this case in any sense of the word.