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)

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 3
Leaf #:
000196
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 21, 2023
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.

1 1422 H. N. Marvin, Direct Examination. By Mr. Kingsley: Q. Did you, at any time, license the Navy Department or any of its representatives, to use, on behalf of the Navy Department, apparatus, upon which the Motion Picture Patents Company had patents? A. We did. Q. Was the license granted to the Assistant Secretary of the Navy or any official of the Navy? A. I believe it was granted to the Assistant Secretary of the Navy. Mr. Grosvenor: I want to object to this line of questioning as trivial, and going into the most remote and immaterial matters, it never having been contended either in the Standard Oil or Tobacco cases that either the Standard Oil Company or the American Tobacco Company, had obtained immunity from the Anti-Trust Law, for the reason that either of those companies had had business relations with the United States, one of them having sold oil and the other tobacco. Mr. Kingsley: I wish to call attention on the record to the fact that the objection is not a legal objection, but a mere statement of a conclusion of the counsel relative to what he believes happened in another case, or did not happen. By Mr. Kingsley: Q. I show you a letter dated April 30th, 1909, addressed to Lieutenant Commander G. H. Holden, Navy Yard, Brooklyn, New York, signed, "George F. Scull, Secretary." Was that letter sent from the Motion Picture Patents Company? A. It was. Q. I call your attention to a notation at the bottom of the page, to this effect: "The foregoing license is accepted, Beekman Winthrop, Assistant Secretary of the Navy." Was that placed thereon after the letter was sent? A. It was. Q. And subsequently returned to the Motion Picture Patents Company? A. Yes. Mr. Kingsley: I offer it in evidence. Mr. Grosvenor: Same objection. The paper offered is received in evidence and