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 000545 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 #:
000545
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.

George K. Spoor, Direct Examination. 2987 Q. Did you have any regular company of actors in your employ at that time? A. None at all, no, sir. Q. How did you get them? How did you employ them, just by piece work? A. Yes, sir, employed them as we wanted them. Q. Were you sued during 1907 by the Edison Company on any of the patents? A. We were not. Q. Did you know of the pendency of the litigation between the Edison Company and the other producers of motion pictures? A. Yes, sir. Q. Can you state some of the suits you knew were pending about that time? A. Why, I knew of the Biograph suit, and the Lubin, the Selig. the Vitagraph, and there may have been one or two others that I do not recall. Q. Did you know of the decision of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals here in New York in the litigation between the Edison Company and the Biograph Company? A. Yes, I did. Q. Over the camera patents? You heard of that at the time it was rendered? A. Yes, sir, I did. Q. And read it in the trade papers? A. I read it in the theatrical papers, yes, sir. Q. Were you aware also of the litigation between the Edison Company and Selig of the Selig Polyscope Company, in Chicago, over the camera patents? A. Yes, sir. Q. And did you know of the issuance of an injunction against the Selig Company by Judge Kohlsaat, of Chicago? A. Yes, sir, I did. Q. Do you recall about what time that was? A. That was in 1907. I think, along in the latter part. It was in 1907. Q. Prior to the rendering of that decision did you make application to the Edison Company for a license under its patents? A. I did not. Q. You subsequently made application? A. Yes, sir. Q. Why did you wait from July, when you first commenced business, until later on when you did make application? Did you make your application before or after the decision in the Selig suit? A. Why, after the decision. Q. Why did you wait all that time before applying for a license? A. I waited to see how Selig came out in the suit, whether he won it, or did not win it.