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 000437 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 #:
000437
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. Baumann, Cross Examination. 2887 have never visited the offices of the General Film Com * pany. Q. Does any of your information come from the trade papers? A. No. Q. On page 2874, and the following pages, yon named a list of buying exchanges, dated July 13th, 1910, being quoted from an advertisement of the Motion Ficture Distributing & Sales Company. That list is a list, or purports to give a list of the exchanges to whom yon were selling C. O. D., as stated on page 2877? A. Yes, sir. Q. Very many of those exchanges were small concerns, ~ were they not? A. More or less. Q. I didn't ask you about more or less. I said many of those exchanges named on pages 2874 to 287G, being copied from the advertisement of July 13th, 1910, were small exchanges? Mr. KiNCxSLEY: Objected to, on the ground that the witness has already answered the question. The Witness : In my opinion they were the average exchange that existed in that time. 3 By Mr. Grosvenor: Q. And many of them were small exchanges, were they not? A. I don't understand the question "small." Q. Were not a large number of those exchanges named on this list doing a very inconsiderable amount of business? Mr. Kingsley: Objected to, on the ground that the question lias already been answered clearly. 4 The Witness: I don't know what business they did. By Mr. Grosvenor : Q. Isn't it a fact that the greater number of those exchanges, if they did any business with you at all, were doing a very small amount of business with you? Mr. Kingsley: Objected to, on the ground that the question has already been answered.