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 00097 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 #:
00097
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.

J. A. Berst, Direct Examination. 1947 Q. And you have shown the licensed pictures? A. I 1 have shown the licensed pictures. Q. Do you consider the licensed pictures, the pictures of these eight or nine manufacturers, better than any of the other pictures? A. Personally, I think so. And by experience, too. I have tried to put in the other pictures, and experience has taught me that lesson, too. The people seem to be better acquainted with the actors of the licensed pictures. Q. So you confine yourself to the pictures of the licensed manufacturers? A. Yes, sir. ---. Q. Are special features an important part of the program wilich you give in your theatres? A. I think they are the most important part. Q. Why is that? A. Well, I suppose the public nowadays is educated to the fact that they want to see — they think a special feature of two or three reels like if they go to a theatre and see a big show, whereas in the single reels, of course, it seemed to get to be monotonous and an every-day affair. Q. Was your license ever cancelled by the Patents Company? A. No, sir. o J. A. BERST, recalled on behalf of the defendants for further direct examination, already sworn, testified as follows: Direct examination (continued) by Mr. Caldwell: Q. Mr. Berst, referring to Defendants' Exhibit 112, page 17C5 of the record, the first paragraph of which provides that Herman Herst is retained as attorney for the various defendants in the actions referred to in the asrreement, and the firm of Kerr, Page & Cooper are retained as general counsel for the defense of said actions, do you know whether testimony was taken in the suit brought against you and the Pathe Cinematograph Company? A. No, sir. No testimony was brought in the suit against us, but I know that expert testimony and other testimony were taken in the suit against Eberhard Schneider. This testi