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 00048 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 #:
00048
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.

1 4 2498 Fred C. Aiken, Cross Examination. By Mr. Grosvenor: Q. This latter article which I have shown you from the Show World states — Mr. Kingsley : I object to airy statement from the Show World, on the ground that it is incompetent, immaterial and irrelevant. This is not proper cross examination. By Mr. Grosvenor: Q. "The manufacturers who have agreed to co-operate with the Association are as follows : Edison Manufacturing Company, Pathe Cinematograph Company, American Vitagraph Company, Kalem Company, Selig Polyscope Company, S. Lubin, Melies Company, and the Essanay Company." Does that statement accord with your recollection of the facts? Mr. Kingsley: I object to the question, as incompetent, immaterial and irrelevant, on the ground that this is not proper cross examination; it is not the proper way of refreshing the witness' recollection; that it calls for a comparison and conclusion on the part of the witness. I may state, for the benefit of the witness, that refreshing his memory means that his memory must be awakened to the fact, so that, independent of the material which has refreshed it, he remembers. By Mr. Grosvenor: Q. Repeat that question for the witness, and see if he can answer it. The Examiner repeats the question as follows: "Q. 'The manufacturers who have agreed to cooperate with the Association are as follows: Edison Manufacturing Company, Pathe Cinematograph Company, American Vitagraph Company, Kalem Company, Selig Polyscope Company, S. Lubin, Melies Company, and the Essanay Company.' Does that statement accord with your recollection of the facts?"