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 000418 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 #:
000418
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.

2868 Chari.es O. Baumann, Direct Examination. Q. Was an application made for a preliminary injunction at the beginning of the suit? A. Yes. Q. Was that granted or denied? A. Denied. Q. After that, was testimony taken in the suit? A. Yes. Q. Was testimony taken in Brooklyn? A. Yes. Q. Was any testimony taken elsewhere? A. California. Q. After testimony had been taken for sometime, what was done, if anything, with respect to the application for injunction? A. Consented to an injunction. Q. Am I to understand that the defendant consented to an injunction? A. Yes. Q. Was this litigation expensive? A. Quite. Q. Do you recall how much it cost the New York Motion Picture Company to defend, approximately? A. Altogether the patent litigation, about sixty-five thousand dollars. Q. At that time were you as an officer of the New York Motion Picture Company, fearful of the lawsuits under the patents owned or controlled by the Motion Picture Patents Company? A. Yes. Q. Was it the policy of your company to avoid lawsuits with the Motion Picture Patents Company, if possible, at that time? A. Yes. Q. Tn 1909 did you have any knowledge of lawsuits begun by the Motion Picture Patents Company under its patents against various manufacturers or producers of motion pictures in New York City or its vicinity? A. Yes. Q. What producers were sued? A. Independent Motion Picture Company of America, David Horsley, or rather, the Centaur Film Company. Q. Do you wish to substitute the Centaur Film Company for the Independent Motion Picture Company? A. No. For David Horsley. lie was the proprietor. Q. Do you recall any other defendants in 1909 or thereabouts? A. Well, 1909 or 1910, Thanhauser, Carlton Motion Picture Laboratory. Q. Respecting these lawsuits and the defendants, did yon have any other knowledge excepting rumors of the trade and genera] talk that came to you? A. Yes, I did have. (>. Had yon talked with any of the defendants? A. Yes. Q. So that you knew that they had been sued? A. Yes. Q. Do yon know under what patent or patents these suits were brought? A. Yes.