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 #:
000604
Language:
English
Collection:
Early Cinema and Government & Law
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.

304G SlEGMUND LUBIN, DIRECT EXAMINATION. took the first license out from Edison, I don't know the year, neither, but I can look when it was started. I took out a license from Edison in 1908. Q. And did you, after that, take out a license with the Patents Company? A. Yes, sir, in December, 190S, a little later on, a couple of months later. Q. Did you have any litigation or lawsuits with respect to film, camera or projecting machine patents before you became a licensee of the Edison Company? A. Yes. Q. Did you have one lawsuit or several lawsuits? A. Several — in 1896 — I made films; in '95 I made projecting machines. Q. Did you succeed in making this machine? A. Yes, sir. Q. Was there a time that you went out of business in this country? A. Yes. Q. What year was that, if you recall? A. Well, I don't know the year, is one trouble; I have not kept that. A couple of years after I manufactured I went away to Europe and took all my firm's machinery along, as Edison at that time had won a suit against the Biograph, and my lawyer advised I had better quit the country here. My case was similar to or like the Biograph. Mr. Grosvenor: When was this, in 1901? The Witness: No. 1901? I can't tell you the date. I must look that up. Mr. Grosvenor: I object to all this testimony as being indefinite and misleading, giving the wrong impression as to the litigation, said litigation having occurred many years prior to the formation of this combination, and having no bearing upon any of the issues in this case. By Mr. Kingsley: Q. What was the reason for yonr ceasing to do business in this country? A. Well, 1 had trouble with the patentee, with Mr. Edison. 1 had also a lawsuit with the Biograph. I had also a lawsuit with a man in Washington.