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)

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 #:
000132
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 21, 2023
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.

1982 Samuel Long, Cross Examination. derstanding being, after conference with the attorneys for the defendants, that they will proceed on that day and endeavor to proceed continuously up through December 13th in New York, unless they are able to conclude their New York testimony prior to that date. Mr. Caldwell: That is quite right, I think, as far as it goes, but there is no understanding that we will not take any further testimony in New York after that date. You understand that, don't you? Mr. Grosvenor: Yes, I understand that, but you will — Mr. Caldwell: We will endeavor to proceed continuously up to December 13th. Mr. Grosvenor: And that then, probably, the defendants will, in all probability, conclude their testimony in New York, so far as it has to be taken in New York, by that time. Mr. Caldwell : I would not like to say we will do that in all probability. I will say that we will use our best endeavors to substantially complete our testimony in New York by that time. We may, however, be disappointed in our belief. Mr. Grosvenor: In mentioning the date of December 13, no inference must be drawn from the naming of the date, the 13th, that the Government's counsel will consent to an adjournment at that time if the taking of testimony by the defendants at that time is not concluded. The Examiner: I understand the agreement is, that the defendants agree to go on continuously from December 1st to December 13th, and do all the work they can here. Mr. Caldwell : The defendants agree to use their best endeavors. The Examiner: The hearings are, therefore, adjourned until 10 : 30 o'clock A. M., December 1, 1913. Whereupon, at 3 : 30 P. M. on this Friday, the 21st day of November, 1913, the hearings are adjourned until Monday, December 1st, 1913, at 10 : 30 A. M., at the Hotel Manhattan, Room 159, New York City.