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)

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 #:
00078
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 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.

2528 Petitionees Exhibit No. 256. tains a preface and preamble which was previously supplied to the witness to refresh his recollection, and if his recollection was refreshed, a question could be asked him without reading this upon the record, and it is, therefore, put upon the record for an ulterior purpose, and not for the purpose of refreshing the witness' mind at all. Mr. Grosvexor : Repeat the question, please. The question was repeated by the Examiner as follows : "Q. Does that article refresh your recollection as to the bringing of these suits about that time, in Chicago, against the motion picture theatres?'' The Witness : I knew suits, or something of that sort, were brought against certain exhibitors there. By Mr. Grosvexor: Q. About that time? A. Somewhere. Q. And this was some of the litigation you had in mind in your testimony on direct examination? A. No, I didn't have this particular litigation in mind. I had in mind the litigation as a whole, as I remember it, right along. Mr. Grosvexor: I offer that article in evidence. The article offered is received in evidence and marked "Petitioner's Exhibit No. 25G, and is as follows : Petitioner's Exhibit No. 256. EDISON FIRES SECOND GUN IN FILM BATTLE. Injunction Suits Instituted Against Owners of Moving Theatres in Chicago — George Kleine Discusses Litigation. The Edison Manufacturing Company, of Orange, N. J., fired its second gun in the great film battle instituted in Chicago by filing injunction suits on March 1G in the United States Circuit Court against seven owners of moving picture theatres. The defendants are William Marks, Joseph T. Dorgan, Christ Rohlandson, John Ferris, John Furla, Abe Mills and D. E. Mulvey.