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 00051 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 #:
00051
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.

Samuel Long, Direct Examination. 1001 By Mr. Caldwell : Q. Do you recall the month of the year 1907 that you obtained this advice from your counsel? A. We produced our first picture in February and it was prior to that. Q. Then it was prior to February, 1907? A. It was either the first of February, or prior to the production of our first picture in February. Q. And was the advice of your counsel to which you have referred, verbal or in writing? A. It was verbal. Q. And they advised you to apply to the Edison Company for a license under the Edison camera patent? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you apply to the Edison Company for a license under the Edison camera patent? A. Yes, we did. Q. Was that application verbal or in writing? A. That application was verbal, to Mr. Alexander Moore, who then had charge of the Kinetograph department of the Edison Company. Q. State again, Mr. Long, about when it was you made your first application to the Edison Company for a license, as near as you can remember? A. It was a very short time before we produced our first picture, in February of 1907. Q. Well, what became of that application? Did you hear anything from it? A. Nothing ever came of that application. Q. Then subsequently did you or did you not renew your application for a license under the Edison camera patent? A. We made a second application to Mr. Moore. Q. Was that second application prior or subsequent to the decision of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals in the case to which I have just referred? A. It was subsequent. Q. Did you obtain any advice from your counsel, Kerr, Page & Cooper, subsequent to the rendering of that decision? A. I do not recall it. Q. Well, what became of your second application for a license to the Edison Company? A. Mr. Moore seemed friendly disposed, and was inclined to keep us waiting, and nothing came of it immediately. Mr. Grosvenor: And when was this second application?