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 00029 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 #:
00029
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. Blacktox, Direct Examination. 1879 By Mr. Kingsley : Q. Did you have any other litigation during this period of three or four years? A. Yes, sir, we were sued by the Armat Company, and by the Biograph Company. Q. And were you sued by them under patents connected with the motion picture art? A. Yes, sir. Mr. Grosvenor: That is objected to, as heretofore, on the ground that the dates should be stated. By Mr. Kingsley : Q. Are you able to state the dates of that suit, approximately? A. Well, it was between 1902 and 1904, I should say. Q. Now, what impression did this litigation make upon you, with respect to the desirability of increasing your business or putting in more capital of your own or enlisting outside capital? A. Well, it had the obvious effect of deterring us entirely from making any great investment, because of having no great confidence in our business, and it caused us, at one time, to offer our business for sale to Lyman H. Howe. Mr. Grosvenor: I object to the last statement, because the same is immaterial and too remote, unless the witness states the date. By Mr. Kingsley : Q. About what time was it that you made this offer to Lyman H. Howe? A. That was probably in the year 1902 or 1903. Mr. Grosvenor: I make the same objection. It is too remote to be material. By Mr. Kingsley : Q. Now, from 1904 to 1907, were you engaged in producing motion pictures? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did your business expand very much during those three years? A. No, not appreciably. 4