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)

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 #:
000319
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 21, 2023
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, Becross Examination. 3325 Mr. Kingsley: We offer in evidence Edison ReIssue Patent No. 12,192, dated January 12th, 1904. The same is received in evidence and is marked Defendants' Exhibit 187. Mr. Kingsley : We offer in evidence Smith Patent No. 673,329, dated April 30th, 1901. The same is received in evidence and is marked Defendants' Exhibit 188. Mr. Kingsley : We offer in evidence Smith Patent No. 711,251, dated November 17th, 1903. The same is received in evidence and is marked Defendants' Exhibit 189. Mr. Kingsley : We offer in evidence Smith Patent No. 770,937, dated September 27th, 1901. The same is received in evidence and is marked Defendants' Exhibit 190. Mr. Kingsley : We offer in evidence Smith Patent No. 771,280, dated October 1th, 1904. The same is received in evidence and is marked Defendants' Exhibit 191. Mr. Kingsley: We offer in evidence Ellwood Patent No. 785,205, dated March 21st, 1905. The same is received in evidence and is marked Defendants' Exhibit 192. Mr. Kingsley : We offer in evidence Smith Patent No. 785,237, dated March 21st, 1905. The same is received in evidence and is marked Defendants' Exhibit 193. Mr. Kingsley : We offer in evidence Armat Patent No. 578,185, dated March 2nd, 1897. The same is received in evidence and is marked Defendants' Exhibit 191. Mr. Kingsley : We offer in evidence Armat Patent No. 580,719, dated April 13th, 1897. The same is received in evidence and is marked Defendants' Exhibit 195. Mr. Kingsley: We offer in evidence Jenkins & Armat Patent No. 586,953, dated July 20th, 1897. The same is received in evidence and is marked Defendants' Exhibit 196. Mr. Kingsley: We offer in evidence Steward & Frost Patent No. 588,916, dated August 24th, 1897.