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 000137 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 #:
000137
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.

James S. Blackton, Direct Examination. 1(J87 Company that we might continue to manufacture negatives, but said negatives were to be turned over to them, and printed and sold by them, and they were to allow us a certain royalty per foot, I forget the amount now, on each foot that they sold. Q. Were you at that time absolutely prevented from making and independently selling motion pictures without referring the matter to the Edison Manufacturing Company? A. Absolutely. Q. I show you a paper, dated Orange, New Jersey, October 31st, 1900, which purports to be a credit memorandum issued by the Edison Manufacturing Company, to Blackton & Smith, 116 Nassau Street, New York, and ask you if you recognize it? A. I do. Q. What does that credit memorandum represent, Mr. Blackton? A. It represents the royalty they paid us on a number of films of the Galveston Disaster, the negatives of which we made and turned over to them under our agreement. Q. Does that bill represent the course of business then prevailing between Blackton & Smith and the Edison Manufacturing Company with reference to the production of motion pictures? A. It refers to all of our dealings with them at that time, that is, all of our dealings with them were done in that way. Mr. Grosvenor: I think in answering he should indicate the time, that is, the duration of this arrangement. The Witness : Well, I can add to that by saying from the year 1900 to possibly 1902. Mr. Grosvenor : I object to all this testimony as being too remote, and having no bearing upon any of the issues in this case, the same relating to relations between the Edison and Vitagraph Companies in 1902, six years before the formation of this alleged combination. Mr. Kingsley : I offer the credit memorandum in evidence. Mr. Grosvenor: And T make the same objection to the introduction of this paper.