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 000323 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 #:
000323
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.

Thomas Abmat, Direct Examination. 2173 By Mr. Kingsley: 1 Q. Was such litigation going on at the time of the execution of this agreement marked Defendants' Exhibit 130, which you have just identified? A. It was. Q. Now, Mr. Armat, in prosecuting infringers of Patent No. 586,953, what manufacturing companies were the chief offenders? A. The Edison Manufacturing Company. Q. And did you find that most of the infringing machines were manufactured by the Edison Manufacturing Company? A. We did. Q. In prosecuting infringements of Patent No. 586,953, 2 did you find that the infringers were being aided or assisted by any manufacturing company? Mr. Grosvenor: I object to the question as too general, and relating to a period of too long a duration, so that the answer cannot be of any value, and I request that the time be specified more particularly. The Witness : We did. As I recall the facts, in the first suit filed against Chase in Washington, the Biograph Company undertook to defend the suit, because Chase was using 3 their machine. By Mr. Kingsley : Q. That was the P. B. Chase to whom you referred yesterday? A. Yes. Mr. Grosvenor : And this suit having been brought in 1901, as was testified to by the witness, I move to strike out the answer on the ground that it is too remote to have any bearing. 4 The Witness : In the second suit filed against Chase, he was using an Edison machine, and the Edison Company undertook to defend the suit. Mr. Grosvenor: Same objection, the testimony of the witness showing that that suit was brought six or seven years prior to the formation of the Edison Licensees' Association.