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 000250 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 3
Leaf #:
000250
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.

147<) Frank L. Dyer, Direct Examination. 1 Mr. Caldwell : I do not think so. I do not think the witness will be intentionally misleading. By Mr. Caldwell: Q. Now, I think you have stated that suits were brought against Eberhard Schneider and the Vita graph Company and Melies, Pathe Cinematograph Company and J. A. Berst. Do you know what happened in those suits? What the result of them was? A. Are you speaking now of the re-issue? 2 Q. The re-issue. A. Those suits were held up pending the determination of the Biograph suit, except as I have stated, the motion for preliminary injunction against Selig and possibly also, against Lubin. Q. After the decision of the United States Court of Appeals, the second decision in the Biograph case, which, as you have stated, was followed by the decision of Judge Kohlsaat in Chicago, holding that the so-called Lumiere and Selig cameras were also infringements of the Edison camera, what happened? 3 Mr. Grosvenor: I object to this testimony so far as it purports to give the conclusions or opinions of the Court, the proper evidence being those opinions; I further object to this last question as in my opinion, counsel is stating that the witness has testified to certain things, which it is my understanding he has not testified to thus far. Mr. Caldwell: The principal opinion to which I refer, you have already introduced in evidence. The opinion of Judge Kohlsaat is, however, not in evidence as yet. We will put it in. 4 By Mr. Caldwell: Q. What happened in the Fall of 1907, or Winter of 1907 and 1908, Mr. Dyer? A. With the successful termination of the litigation in favor of the Edison camera patent, which was held to cover all existing practical motion picture cameras — Mr. Grosvenor: I object to this as being merely