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 000303 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 #:
000303
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, Recross Examination. 3309 animation, and for the purpose of discrediting the witness' testimony on this point, and also these diagrams and the use of the term "Edison film" thereon, the question and answer of Mr. Edison in the case of Thomas A. Edison v. American Mutoscope Company, being the suit on the original Patent No. 589,168, a certain part of the record purporting to be a part of the cross examination of Thomas A. Edison, a witness in that suit, appearing at pages 119 and 120, as follows: "Q176. You did not regard the film, then, as a thing of your invention? A. No, I did not regard the film as a part of my invention; no, sir. I looked to the people who made it for that." Mr. Kixgsley: This record, Vol. I, at page 179, contains a further colloquy in the opinion of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, dated December 2nd, 1912, and I call attention to the fact that the cross examination which petitioner's counsel wishes now to insert to the extent of two paragraphs, is set out at greater length at page 179, Volume I, of this record, in the opinion quoted, at pages 175 to 183 inclusive. Mr. Grosvexor: I ask to have copied at this point, for convenience in examining the testimony of the witness, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 51, Volume 1, page 131. Mr. Kixgsley : I object to encumbering the record any further by repetition of exhibits already in, already printed. Mr. Grosvexor: I also ask to have copied here Petitioner's Exhibit No. 55, Volume 1, page 132. Mr. Kixgsley : I object to it as surplusage, unnecessary labor and unnecessary repetition, the exhibits being already in evidence, and being set out in extenso in Volume 1, and I ask that the Petitioner refer to the exhibit by page number in the record already established. At the request of counsel for the Petitioner. Petitioner's Exhibits Nos. 54 and 55 are reprinted at this point, as follows: