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 000105 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 #:
000105
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, Cross Examination. 1055 Q. Or that the other defendants who made similar agreements would have a monopoly of the exchange business in the United States? A. I don't understand that. I am sorry to ask you to repeat it. Q. Did you enter into the agreement of April, 1910, Pathe Freres and the General 'Film Company, with purpose of monopolizing the exchange business throughout the United States? A. No, sir. Cross examination by Mr. Grosvenor: Q. Mr. Berst, I direct your attention to an answer which you gave on direct examination, appearing in the record at page 1774, in which you say, referring to the Biograph and Arniat companies: "They always claimed that the Latham patent would stop everybody from exhibiting pictures on machines which were not licensed by them, and I have taken means to reassure many of our customers and tell them that they should defend the suit, and I published even articles in the trade papers informing the trade in general that the Latham patent was of no value, that we knew of other means to project films without infringing on their patents, and that when the time came, we would use those means, but in fact I knew very well it was not true. I knew the Latham patent was a very strong patent, and when I was telling my customers that these patents were not true, I at the same time requested the Compagnie Generate in France to make" — A. My answer is not correct there, Mr. Grosvenor, I said they should defend. I meant we would defend. Q. Is there any other amendment to that answer you care to make now, the answer having been given two days ago and having been nowT read to you? A. Not except what I have just said. Q. You say, "I published even articles in the trade papers informing the trade in general that the Latham patent was of no value, that we knew of other means to project films without infringing on their patents, and that when the time came we would use those means, but in fact, I knew very well, it was not true." Why did you make public statements which you now state were untrue in fact? A. Because I had to protect my own business, and I had to