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 (1914)

Page scan 00030 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:
1914
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 5
Leaf #:
00030
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.

2480 Petitioner's Exhibit No. 253. * Association, and the by-laws were not submitted to the manufacturers prior to their adoption. Mr. Kingsley : I make the same objection on behalf of the other defendants. I also object to the introduction of this article piece-meal on the ground that it is intended to furnish a basis for misconstruction of the testimony of the witness, and it is intended to draw the inference that these manufacturers and these exchange men wTere in Pittsburgh, and holding a meeting together, when, as a matter of fact, the artide only shows that the}' were registered at a hotel or at various hotels, as the case may be. Mr. Grosvenor : I will ask to have the whole of the article copied at this point, in order to meet the latter objection, although I intended to introduce the rest after some other questions, in order to make it more clear. Mr. Kingsley: I now object to the introduction of the article in evidence, as a whole, on the ground that it is not binding upon any of these defendants. It does not tend to impeach the witness in the slighter est, and is a mere newspaper publication having no significance with respect to the issues in this action. The article offered is received in evidence and marked, "Petitioner's Exhibit 253," and is as follows : Petitioner's Exhibit No. 253. THE PITTSBURG CONFERENCE The film manufacturers and film renters held a conference on Saturday and Sunday, 16th and 17th inst., at the Fort Pitt Hotel, Pittsburg, Pa., at which there were pres4 ent, representing the manufacturers : American Mutoscope and Biograph Company, Messrs. Kennedy and Marvin; Edison Manufacturing Company, Alex. T. Moore, of New York, and Mr. Hardin, of Chicago; Essanay Company, Geo. K. Spoor and G. M. Anderson ; Kalem Company, Geo. Kleine and Samuel Long; Kleine Optical Company, Geo. Kleine; S. Lubin, S. Lubin and F. W. Singhi; Geo. Melies, Gaston Melies; Society Italian Cines, I. W. Ullman and Geo. F. Bauerdoy; Vitagraph of