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 #:
00094
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.

2544 Fred C. Aiken, Cross Examination. applied to Judge Kolilsaat, or to the United States Court, in Chicago, for an injunction against the Edison Company, restraining the Edison Company from prosecuting any of the suits against the customers of the Kleine Optical Company? A. I think he did. Mr. Kingsley: I object to the question as not proper cross examination. By Mr. Grosvenor: Q. And the matter came up on a hearing before Judge Kolilsaat? A. Yes, sir. Q. And you were present at the hearing? A. I was. Part of the time. Q. Is that the hearing before Judge Kolilsaat to which you referred, earlier on cross examination to-day, as being the litigation which you had in mind, when atou testified on direct examination? A. This is one of them. Q. Mr. Aiken, I show you an article in the Show World of May 16th, 1908, at page 12, entitled, "Film Battle Waged in Court, Argument Heard, and War is Stayed by Agreement, Attorneys Consent to a Truce. Edison Company Not to File more Suits. By Hector J. Streyckmans. Petition of Kleine Optical Company Heard/' Please read that article. Do you recall this Mr. Streyckmans, who appears to have been the author of the article, being present the day the matter was argued? A. I think he Avas. Q. And he was the man who was interested in this Show World, was he not? A. He was connected with them in some way. Q. Did you read the article at the time it was printed? A. I presume I did. Q. And is it a fairly accurate account of what transpired on that day, in Court? Mr. Kingsley: I object to the question as improper in form. The Witness : I think it was. Mr. Caldwell : I object to it as not only improper in form, but thoroughly incompetent, for the reason