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 000109 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 #:
000109
Language:
English
Collection:
Early Cinema and Government & Law
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. 1959 any suit brought on the Latham patent from 1902, when it was issued, down to the Spring of 1908, when the Biograph Company acquired it? Mr. Caldwell : Objected to as incompetent and immaterial. The evidence does not disclose any such state of facts as embodied in the question. The Witness: I don't know if there was, or if there was not. By Mr. Grosvenor : Q. You testified on direct examination that the Edison Company brought a suit against you on the film reissue No. 12,192 in November, 1904; is that right? A. That is correct, sir. Q. Did you, thereafter, during 1905 and '06 and '07, continue to import positive films? A. Yes, sir. Q. And many positive films were imported by others? A. Yes, sir. Q. How much testimony was taken in the Schneider suit that you referred to as being the one of the four suits which was selected as the test suit? A. I know that expert testimony was taken by both sides and that it was very extensive testimony. Q. Three years had elapsed between the bringing of that suit and the formation of the Edison licensees, isn't that right? A. Yes, sir. Q. And during that entire period, you were importing and others were importing these positive films? A. Yes, sir. Q. And the case, that is, the Schneider case, had not yet been set for argument up to February, 1908, had it? A. I don't know, sir. Q. No decision was ever rendered on it, was there? A. No, sir. Q. Page 1769 of the record, you were testifying as to your return from Venezuela in the early part of 1908; you say that your representative came to you and fold you that several of the manufacturers and importers were willing to take licenses from the Edison Company, providing "I would agree to it, and tin1 next day or a few days later, Mr. Moore of the Edison Company came into my office