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 #:
00095
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.

Petitioner's Exhibit No. 259. 2545 that the proper way of proving what transpired in * Court is by the Court records. Mr. Kingsley: I object to any attempt to prove the authenticity or correctness of any article that Hector J. Streyckmans has written, on the further ground that Streyckmans is a witness in this case, and was produced here by the petitioner, and if the article was to have been proved, it should have been proved out of the mouth of the witness Streyckmans, at the time he was on the stand. Mr. Grosvenor: I was not able to get the Show ~ World at that time, although I made every effort to find a copy. Mr. Kingsley : We will not waive any of our rights because of any failure you may have had in getting your evidence. Mr. Grosvenor : I will have this introduced in evidence, the entire article, the witness having identified it. Mr. Kingsley : I object to it, as incompetent, immaterial and irrelevant, as hearsay, as not properly proved, as not the best evidence, as not binding upon 3 these defendants, and as purporting to be the writings of a witness in this case who was not interrogated regarding the contents thereof. The paper offered is received in evidence, and is marked "Petitioner's Exhibit No. 259," and is as follows : Petitioner's Exhibit No. 259. FILM BATTLE WAGED IN COURT; ARGUMENTS HEARD AND WAR IS STAYED BY AGREEMENT. ATTORNEYS CONSENT TO A TRUCE. 4 EDISON COMPANY NOT TO FILE MORE SUITS. PETITION OF KLEINE OPTICAL COMPANY HEARD. By Hector J. Streyckmans. The film battle, which has been raging over the country