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 000272 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 #:
000272
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 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.

3278 Harry N. Marvin, Cross Examination. called? A. That was put out, I believe, by the American Company. Q, Do you mean the American Moving Picture Company? A. The American Moving Picture Company. Q. How as to the Simplex machine? A. The Simplex machines were put out by the Precision Manufacturing Company. Q. Do you mean the Precision Machine Company? A. The Precision Machine Company. Q. And the Motiograph? A. The Enterprise Optical Company. Q. State whether or not the Simplex machines are machines put out under the license from the Patents Company. A. They are. Cross examination by Mr. Grosvenor : Q. Mr. Marvin, on your direct examination by Mr. Church, you put in a room full of machines and diagrams. Please state in your own language, the purpose of the introduction of all those exhibits. Mr. Kingsley: I object to the characterization that a room full of machines and diagrams were put in evidence. The fact that the counsel for the Government was in the room at the same time the exhibits were introduced, shows that the room was not filled with machinery or exhibits. The Witness : The purpose of introducing these machines and diagrams was to enable the Court more readily to understand the various machines and apparatus that are concerned in this case. By Mr. Grosvenor : Q. And was it in carrying out that purpose which you have described, that on the various diagrams you have attempted to describe the various parts of the machines appearing on the diagrams? A. It was for the purpose of giving a clear explanation of the various essential characteristics of this various apparatus that particular parts of the apparatus have been designated on the charts in conformity wTith the description given of these several parts.