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 000233 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 #:
000233
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.

Harry N. Marvin, Direct Examination. 3261 embody all of the characteristics described by you in your description of projecting machines. A. There have not. Q. Can you, and will you, produce a camera typical of the cameras on the market in January, 1908? A. I can, and I here produce such a camera, which is of the type known as the Warwick camera. Mr. Church : The camera referred to by the witness is offered in evidence, and the Examiner is requested to mark the same "Defendants' Exhibit 174." The exhibit is received in evidence, and is so marked. By Mr. Church : Q. Can you, and will you, produce a projecting machine typical of the .projecting machines on the market in January, 1908, as you have testified? A. I can and do produce such a projecting machine, which is known as a Power Projecting Machine. Mr. Grosvenor: What number of Power? The Witness : Number 5. Mr. Church : I offer in evidence the projecting machine produced by the witness, and request that the same be marked "Defendants' Exhibit 175." The exhibit is received in evidence, and is so marked. By Mr. Church : (>. Can you and will you produce a negative motion picture film typical of the negative motion picture films on the market in January, 1908, as to which you have testified ? A I can and do herewith produce such a negative. Mr. Church : Counsel for the defendant offers in evidence the negative film produced by the witness, and requests that the same be marked in evidence as "Defendants' Exhibit 176." The exhibit is received in evidence, and is so marked.