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 000419 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 #:
000419
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.

Charles O. Baumaxx, Direct Examination. 2869 Q. What patent? A. Camera patents. No. 12,037, I believe is the number of your patent. Q. What became of the suit brought by the Motion Picture Patents Company against the New York Motion Picture Company regarding which you have just testified, and in which your company consented to an injunction? A. The case was dropped after the adverse decision by the Court of Appeals against the Patents Company. Q. When was the Motion Picture Distributing & Sales Company formed? A. 1910. Q. Do you recall the month in 1910 when the Motion Picture Distributing & Sales Company was organized? A. May or June, and began business in July. Q. What was the Motion Picture Distributing & Sales Company? A. An organization handling the product of all of the unlicensed producers of America, as well as importers. Q. Who were the members of the new corporation? A, Mr. Laemmle, Mr. Swanson, Mr. Powers, Mr. Thanhouser, Mr. Oes, Mr. Offerman, and myself. Q. With what company was Mr. Oes connected? A. Importer. The Great Northern Film Company. Mr. Grosvenor : I object to this entire line of exination as immaterial, and side of the issues in this case. amination as immaterial, and going into matters out By Mr. Kingsley: Q. With what company was Mr. Offerman connected? A. Eclair. Q. Did each of the members of the Motion Picture Distributing & Sales Company whom you have mentioned, represent a firm or corporation which was producing motion pictures? A. Yes. Q. Did they own shares in equal amounts in the Motion Picture Sales & Distributing Company? A. Yes. (}. Do you know anything about the Carlton Lalvoratories? A. Yes. Q. Who organized the Carlton Laboratories? A. Myself. Q. When did you organize them, Mr. Raumann? A. 1910.