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 00032 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 #:
00032
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.

r 1882 James S. Blackton, Direct Examination. was not an Edison licensee, but became a Patents Company licensee later on. A. I did not mean it in tliat sense, Mr. Kingsley. I meant that he must have been a licensee to sell Edison films, or he could not have handled their product. Q. But, what I am referring to now, Mr. Blackton, is the fact that in 1908 a number of producers of motion pictures who had not been licensed by the Edison Company, were given licenses under what is known as the Edison License Agreement? A. Yes, I recollect now. Q. And became Edison licensees? A. Yes, sir. Q. And I am asking you whether George Kleine was one of those Edison licensees in 1908? A. No, sir, he was not one of the first licensees. Q. Was the Biograph Company one of the first licensees in 1908? A. No, sir. Q. So that George Kleine and the Biograph Company were, neither of them, Edison licensees in 1908? A. No. Q. Did the negotiations to which you have referred occur in the latter part of 1907? A. I think so. Q. When was the Edison license agreement entered into, was it in 1908? A. I believe it was. Q. So that neither George Kleine nor the Biograph Company were Edison licensees in 1908? A. No, sir. Q. Did the Yitagraph Company become a licensee of the Motion Picture Patents Company in the latter part of 1908? A. Yes, sir. Q. During the time that you were an Edison licensee in 1908, did you have any experience with respect to litigation? I am referring to 1908, during the time you were an Edison licensee, and George Kleine and the Biograph Company were not Edison licensees? A. Yes, we were sued by the Armat Company, of Washington, and by the Biograph Company. Q. Did the effect of this suit create any unrest — Mi*. Gbosvbnoe: Objected to as too indefinite, unless the witness states what patents the suits were on. The Witness: The Armat Company sued us on what is