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 #:
000440
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.

2890 Charles O. Baumann, Cross Examination. The Witness: Yes. Mr. Kingsley: I also move to strike out the answer on the ground that the witness can have no knowledge as to whether the exchanges referred to were organized after the cancellation of the license held by the proprietor, or whether the proprietor continued on with the same exchange, handling a different kind of motion pictures. Mr. Grosvenor: Counsel for defendants seems to forget he has put this witness on as qualified to testify as to these matters, and the cross examination is perfectly proper, to show how much he does know. By Mr. Grosvenor: Q. The Twentieth Century Optiscope Company, another on this list, also had its license cancelled? A. I believe it did. Q. Before its license was cancelled it had been doing business in the licensed film? A. Yes. Q. You stated yesterday that after the Patents Company was formed the Empire Film Company had only one reel a week of domestic film to release. Is that right, in May, 1909? A. One American reel? Q. Yes. A. Yes. Q. Was that the extent of the entire output of independent reels in the United States at that time, that is, made in the United States? A. I don't think so. Q. How much else was there that was not made by the licensed manufacturers? A. Probably one or two. Q. So that, considerably over ninety per cent, of the films that were made in this country in the beginning of 1909, went into the Patents Company? A. Yes, sir. Q. Eugene Cline, also named on this list, of Chicago, Illinois, his license had been cancelled, had it not? A. Yes, sir. Q. The Michigan Film & Supply Company, of Detroit, Michigan, their license had been cancelled? A. I don't remember whether they had a license from the Patents Company. Q. The Philadelphia Film Company's (Philadelphia) license had been cancelled, had it not? A. Yes, it had.