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 00027 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 4
Leaf #:
00027
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.

James S. Blackton, Direct Examination. 1877 The Witness : No, I have not. Mr. Grosvenor: What date was that? The Witness: I don't remember. By Mr. Kingsley: Q. Yon don't recall the date of this injunction? A. No, I think it was in 1902. Q. You do recall the purport of it, however? A. I rather think I do. Q. Was it served upon you personally? A. Yes, sir. Q. And upon your partners personally, so far as you know? A. Yes, sir. I remember it, because it had the effect of causing us to turn our entire business over into the hands of a relative of Mr. Smith, a brother-in-law, and causing us to remain physically away from our establishment for a considerable period. Q. Who was the person to whom the plant was turned over at that time? A. Wralter B. Arthup. Mr. Grosvenor: I object to all of this as immaterial, the witness having stated that this was in 1902. W7as it not, witness? The Witness : I think so. I am not positive about dates. Mr. Grosvenor: And, therefore, being at a time too remote to have any bearing on the issues in this suit. By Mr. Kingsley : Q. After this injunction, how long was it before you began making motion pictures again, openly? A. We commenced again upon the reissue of the Edison camera patent, I forget the number, but it is a historic patent. Q. Do you remember the circumstances under which you commenced again? A. Yes; one of my partners, I forget which, brought a copy of the reissued patent into our office, and we thought it was another subpoena, or something of that kind, and upon examining it. we found — 1