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 000111 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 #:
000111
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. 1961 same name, or similarly the same name, has been organized in the State of New Jersey, but I have no knowledge that the licensed manufacturers had anything to do with that. I know that myself as a licensed manufacturer had nothing to do with it. Q. Were you present during the cross examination of Mr. Dyer? A. No, sir. Q. Or of Mr. Long? A. No, sir. Q. Or of Mr. Smith? A. I was present, I believe, at the end of the cross examination of Mr. Smith. Q. You were one of the Directors of the General Film Company? A. Yes, sir. Q. From its organization? A. Yes, sir. Q. And on the Board of Directors of the General Film Company you represented your company, Pathe Freres? A. Not exactly. I was a Director, not representing, but attending to the business of the company. I was elected by the stock owned by Pathe Freres. I was not supposed to represent them. Q. Each of the other Directors was elected by the stock of one of the other licensed manufacturers? A. Some of them, yes. Q. Was there any Director of the General Film Company who was not a licensed manufacturer, or an important officer of one of the licensed manufacturers? A. Now, there is some. At the time, there was none. Q. Was there anyone on the Board of Directors of the General Film Company during the year 1910, who was not a licensed manufacturer or an important officer of one of the licensed manufacturers? A. No, sir. Q. And each one of the licensed manufacturers had at least one of its officers, or owners, or principal managers, as a Director on the Board of Directors of the General Film Company? A. In 1910, yes. Q. You were a member of the Executive Committee in that year? A. For most of the year, that year, yes. Q. The other members of the Executive Committee were J. J. Kennedy, President, and Albert E. Smith, of the Vitagraph Company? A. Yes, sir. Q. One of the matters in which the Executive Committee was interested, and concerning which that Committee busied itself in 1910, was the purchase of various rental exchanges?