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 00052 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 #:
00052
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.

1902 Samuel Long, Direct Examination. The Witness : A short time after the decision of the Biograph-Edison case. By Mr. Caldwell: Q. Do you recall hearing, some time during the Fall of 1907, of Judge Kohlsaat's decision in the United States Circuit Court at Chicago, in a suit brought by the Edison Company against Selig? Mr. Grosvenor : I object to the question as leading, and, furthermore, as assuming something which has not been proven, said opinion having been introduced in evidence, and being dated in the year 1910. Mr. Caldwell: A certified copy of the opinion in evidence distinctly states that it is filed as of November, 1907— Mr. Grosvenor: Filed in 1910. Mr. Caldwell : Yes, as of November, 1907. By Mr. Caldwell: Q. Now, you may state whether you heard of the decision in that case? A. The decision was printed in the dramatic papers. Q. You mean references to the decision were printed in the dramatic papers? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you read it in the dramatic papers at that time? A. I read it in the Clipper, or the Dramatic Mirror. Q. One or the other, you think? A. Yes, sir. Q. Well, what did they say about that decision as to what it involved, these papers to which you referred? A. WTell, it represented that the Edison patents were the controlling patents, and we were then the more impressed with the importance of having a license under the Edison patents. Mr. Grosvenor: Objected to, as hearsay; I move to strike it out. By Mr. Caldwell: Q. When did you next take up with the Edison Company the question of obtaining a license? A. In the Fall of 1907.