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 000433 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 #:
000433
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.

John Hardin, Direct Examination. 1659 Q. Do these rheostats ever burn out? A. Yes, sir. Q. Would a small, cheap rheostat be more apt to burn out than a heavy, more expensive one, such as you have described? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you know whether or not fire regulations, regulations of boards of fire underwriters, and city ordinances, had anything to do with the changes made in projecting machines from time to time? A. Yes, sir, they had a great deal to do with it. Q. And did the manufacturers endeavor to conform to the new regulations and rules made by various municipalities, boards of aldermen and fire underwriters? A. Yes, sir. Q. So that many of the changes made in the projecting machines were based upon positive regulations made by various municipalities or communities? A. Oh, yes. For instance, the film magazines were required by municipalities, and also the fire shutter was required. The film had to be enclosed in an iron box, so that it could not burn. That is the fire magazine. Then the automatic fire shutters were required by ordinances. Q. Neither of these devices were attached to the Universal Model that sold for $75 and |90? A. No, sir. They were never attached to the Universal. Mr. Grosvenor: These are improvements which you made in the machines because you were ordered to do so by the various local authorities? The Witness : Some of the improvements we were required to put on the machines or else we could not sell them. Other improvements we made ourselves to meet the demand for a better machine, which would give a better exhibition and wear longer. By Mr. Kingsley : Q. When was the Universal Model discontinued? A. I cannot say exactly. Sometime about 1910, I think. Mr. Grosvenor: I object to that last question as being remote and immaterial.