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 000273 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 #:
000273
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.

Harry N. Marvin, Cross Examination. 3279 Q. Kindly look at Defendants' Exhibit No. ISO, which was introduced by you in the record, page 32GG, and described by yon. I direct your attention to the label or phrase appearing toward the center of that diagram, and a little above the center, being the words "Edison film." You may state whether the part of the film so designated* on the diagram, which purports to be a copy of a camera, has yet passed before the aperture so as to receive the impressions of a picture. A. From the diagram as it appears — Mr. Grosvenor: I object to any answer except yes or no. I want to know plainly, yes or no, whether that part of the film descending from what you call the "supply reel" has at that point, passed before the aperture. I want the answer yes or no. The Witness : That will depend upon the significance that is given to the term "supply reel." If we assume that that is the reel from which the unexposed portion of the film is taken, then the portion of the film to which you refer won Id not be indicated as having passed before the lens, but if we use the designation "supply reel" to indicate the supply of exposed film, then the portion of the film to which you refer would have already passed before the exposure window. By Mr. Grosvenor: Q. Please state what you mean by the term "supply reel" on your diagram. A. In the diagram as here presented, it was my intention in indicating the upper reel as the "supply reel" to indicate the reel from which the unexposed portion of film was taken. Q. Has that part of the film to which I have directed your attention, and which is labeled "Edison film" passed before the aperture? A. With that designation of the upper supply reel, then that portion of the film referred to by you is not represented as having passed before the aperture. Q. Please state where that film which is so designated has been obtained? A. If I understand your question correctly, the portion of the film designated by me is supposed to have been withdrawn from the reel marked "supply reel." Q. And where was the film obtained from which was