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 00050 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 6
Leaf #:
00050
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.

3082 SlEGMUND L.UBIN, CROSS EXAMINATION. anything since you testified on direct examination in order to enable you to testify more definitely as to those transactions? A. I don't think so. When it comes down to asking me for the dates, you have positively got all the dates here, but I was speaking in testifying of when Edison won the suit, and lost it and when he won it again. You have got the dates here, and if you tell me it is the true date. Q. You testified on your direct examination, that you left this country? A. Yes, sir. Q. And had to go to Europe? A. Yes, sir, owing to the fact that Edison got the injunction. Q. You are now referring to the injunction that Edison got in the lowest Court in 1901 or 1902 against the Biograph Company? A. That is right. Q. And that decision was reversed a year or two later by the Circuit Court of Appeals in this District? A. That is right, and I came back. Q. You came back? A. Yes, sir, I came back. Q. And that all happened five or six years before the Patents Company was organized? A. It did. Then after a while, I would say after a little while, then Edison won again the suit against the Biograph; and now what could I do? I must take out a license to be in existence. I cannot take the whole factory away again. I lost everything I had that time, and I was forced to go away from this country. Q. Are you a Director of the General Film Company? A. I am. Q. Have you been a Director of the General Film Company ever since it was organized? A. I have. Q. As a Director on the Board of the General Film Company you represent the interests of the Lubin Company? A. I do. Q. Each one of the other Directors on the Board of the General Film Company represents one of the other so-called licensed manufacturers? A. I suppose so. Q. Is there any one a Director on the Board of the General Film Company who is not one of the licensed importers, or an important oificer or stockholder in a licensed manufacturer? A. Yes. Q. Who is that? A. One man which represents Kleine, I don't know what he is by Kleine, but he is a Director, and he represents Kleine.