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 00050 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 #:
00050
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.

1900 Samuel Long, Direct Examination. Q. How long have you been a Director? A. Since its organization. Q. Had you ever, at any time, occupied any other office than that of a Director, in the General Film Company? A. I was Treasurer of the General Film Company. Q. During what period? A. From December, 1911, to December, 1912. Q. When you and Mr. Marion left the Biograph Company and organized the Kalem Company for the purpose of going into the business of producing motion pictures, do you recall whether the time of the commencement of your business was before or after the decision of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of the Edison Company against the Biograph Company on the camera patent? Mr. Grosvenor: The camera reissue? Mr. Caldwell: The camera reissue, yes. The Witness: We began our operations before that. By Mr. Caldwell : Q. Before starting in business, did you confer with counsel on the question of your right to engage in the production of motion pictures? A. We conferred with Messrs. Kerr, Page & Cooper. Q, And what did they tell you on that subject? A. They advised us to obtain a license under the Edison patents. Mr. Grosvenor: I object to this testimony as to what advice counsel gave the witness, it being immaterial, and also irrelevant, and also misleading, unless first, the date is shown as to just when the Kalem Company commenced doing business. Mr. Caldwell: He has just stated that it was prior to the date of the decision of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals in the case to which I have referred, and that is a matter of record in this case.