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 #:
000320
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.

3326 Harry N. Marvin, Recross Examination. The same is received in evidence and is marked Defendants' Exhibit 197. Mr. Kingsley: We offer in evidence Casler Patent No. 629,063, dated July 18th, 1889. The same is received in evidence and is marked Defendants' Exhibit 198. Mr. Kingsley: We offer in evidence Armat Patent No. 673,992, dated May 14th, 1901. The same is received in evidence and is marked Defendants' Exhibit 199. Mr. Kingsley: We offer in evidence Latham Patent No. 707,934, dated August 26th, 1902. The same is received in evidence and is marked Defendants' Exhibit 200. Mr. Kingsley: We offer in evidence Pross Patent No. 722,382, dated March 1.0th, 1903. The same is received in evidence and is marked Defendants' Exhibit 201. Stipulation as to Letters Patent Defendants' Exhibits 185 to 201 Inclusive. It is stipulated by and between the respective counsel in this case that counsel for the defendants may reproduce uncertified Patent Office copies of the above mentioned letters patent, and bind them up into the record. Mr. Kingsley: The defendants rest. Whereupon, at 3 o'clock P. M., on this Monday, the thirtieth day of March, 1914, the hearings are adjourned until Monday, April 6th, 1914, for the taking of petitioner's evidence in rebuttal, at a place to be later selected by petitioner's counsel.