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 000417 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 #:
000417
Language:
English
Collection:
Early Cinema and Government & Law
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.

A. J. Clapham, Cross Examination. 1035 f erring to the business that he conducted in San Francisco? Mr. Kingsley : I am asking him generally, as you did; you have brought him to New York, and have gone into his subsequent career in New York. By Mr. Kingsley: Q. What was the name of this company that you referred to, the International Film Company, or the International Film Traders Company? A. The company I made reference to was the International Film Traders. Q. And your testimony was in regard to the Internationa] Film Traders? A. Yes, sir. Q. Is that the complete name of the concern? A. As far as I know, it is the International Film Traders. Q. Did the International Film Traders offer film for sale? A. I don't know anything about what they did. You know as much as I do about that, I guess. Q. I am asking you if they did offer film for sale? A. I don't know. Q. Were you connected with this concern? A. No, sir. Mr. Grosvenor : I object to that as immaterial. I have not asked the witness any questions about the International Film Traders. By Mr. Kingsley: Q. In whose possession were the films at the time of the seizure under the replevin suit? A. They were not in the possession of the International Film Traders, although they were in their premises in a box addressed to me. Q. Now, isn't it true, as a matter of fact, that these films to which you have just referred were distributed all through the stock in the premises of the International Film Company? A. Not my films. Q. Or in the premises of the International Film Traders? A. Not my films. Q. I think you stated that at the time these replevin suits were begun a number of films were seized which belonged to you? A. I should judge, about forty-four of them. Q. What were the titles of those films, or some of them? A. I could not recollect. All the papers in connection with them are in the hands of my attorney.