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 00054 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 #:
00054
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.

1904 Samuel Long, Direct Examination. and any other producers of motion pictures at that time? A. I don't remember. "Q. You do not remember the names of the defendants, you mean?" The Witness : Now, as I understood the original question, it was, was there litigation in 1908? Mr. Caldwell: In the Fall of 1907. Then you misunderstood my question, didn't you? The Witness : I understood it to be 1908. By Mr. Caldwell : Q. Did you know whether or not the Edison Manufacturing Company was in litigation with any other producers of motion pictures in the Fall of 1907? A. Yes, they were in litigation with Selig, and Edison. Q. Can you recall any others? A. Pathe Freres. That is all I recall at the present. Q. You knew that at the time, did you? A. Yes, sir. Notices of the suits were published in the dramatic papers. Q. What were the reasons that influenced you to apply to the Edison Company in the Fall of 1907, for a license? A. My experience with motion pictures led me to believe that that system was the only feasible system to use, and I therefore applied to use it, or for a license to use it, without infringing. Q. Were you at any time during the year, and when I say "you," I mean the Kalem Company, at any time during the year 1908, and subsequent to January 31, 1908, sued by the Biograph Company on any of the patents owned by it? A. We were sued by the Biograph Company under the Latham loop patent. Q. And did you defend that suit? A. No, we turned that over to the Edison Company to defend. We were a licensee then of the Edison Company. Q. And do you know what became of that suit? A. I think it was discontinued. Q. Do you know when it was discontinued — I don't mean the date? A. I think it was discontinued in 1909.