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 000505 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 #:
000505
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.

Petitioner's Exhibit No. 272. 3357 By Mr. Grosvenor: Q. I show you another issue of the Show World of April 4th, 1908, and an article at page 11 purporting to be an article by George Kleine, President of the Kleine Optical Company, Chicago, Illinois. Please state whether that is a statement received by you in the same manner from Mr. Kleine. A. It was handled in the same manner. It was given to me by Mr. Kleine, was written out, submitted to him, and the proof sheets submitted to him again for his final O. K., before the paper was run off. Q. Then the article was run off from proof sheets returned by him? A. It was printed from the same type that the proof sheets were made from. Identical. Mr. Grosvenor: I offer that entire article in evidence. Mr. Kingsley: Same objection on behalf of the defendants. The paper offered is received in evidence and marked ''Petitioner's Exhibit No. 272," and the same is as follows : Petitioner's Exhibit No. 272. KLEINE DISPUTES VALIDITY OF THE EDISON PATENTS 3 Deprecates Attempt Made to Question Quality and Volume of Product of Independent Film Manufacturers — 4 Quotes Attorney John R. Nolan, ^Yho Holds Edison Patents arc Invalid. By George Kleine. President of the Kleine Optical Co., Chicago and New York. In a recent issue of a theatrical paper an unidentified film manufacturer, said to operate under the Edison standard, when asked why the Edison campaign was commenced in Chicago instead of New York, is quoted as follows :