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 000477 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 #:
000477
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.

Frederick C. Beach, Direct Examination. 3329 by Mr. Talbot whether or not he is generally recognized as an authority on photography. Mr. Kingsley: I object, on the ground it is incompetent, immaterial and irrelevant, calls for a conclusion of the witness; on the further ground the witness has not been shown to be competent to give expert testimony, and the question is in effect calling for expert testimony. Mr. Kingsley: Is this from your knowledge of his work? The Witness: This is from my knowledge, yes. He is recognized on general things relating to photography. By Mr. Grosvenor: Q. I show you a book entitled "Moving Pictures," by Frederick A. Talbot. Please state whether that is a book written by Mr. Talbot, regarding whom you have been testifying. Mr. Kingsley: I object to that on the ground it calls for a conclusion of the witness. The mere fact that the book purports to have been written by Frederick A. Talbot is no proof that the book was written by him. The chances are that it was not. The Witness: I should say that it was put together by him. I do not know that all of the book was originated by him. I think it was compiled by him. That is the way I would put it. By Mr. Grosvenor: Q. Is that a book which is distributed and sold by the Scientific American? A. Yes, sir. Q. You may state whether or not that book is considered by you to be a standard book on the motion picture art. Mr. Kingsley: Objected to as calling for a conclusion of the witness. I also object to the question on the further ground that the witness is not shown to be qualified to testify with respect to what is or 1 4