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 #:
000534
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.

3386 Alfred Weiss, Redirect Examination. Q. How many times did be report to you in 1911? A. Very seldom. Q. Were you a witness in the case of the Greater New York Film Rental Company against the General Film Company and the Biograph Company? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you remember that you gave testimony there one day, and that I examined you? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did I ask you this question, and did you make this answer: "Q. You did not have solicitors, did you? A. No.v? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you recall that on that occasion I also asked you this question : "Q. How many weeks did this competition in which you were giving away so much free film, last? A. A couple of months."? A. Y'es, sir. Q. I asked you that question and did you make that answer? A. Yres, sir. Q. Over what period did this time which you have described as a couple of months, extend? A. It was about a month after Mr. Waters resigned. Q. Do you recall that on that occasion I asked you this question : "Q. In the early days of your connection with the General Film Company, were you permitted to conduct the branch, using your own discretion as to the manner of conducting it? A. Yes, sir."? A. Yes, sir. Q. And made that answer to the question I have read you, did you? A. Yres, sir. Q. What was your position in the Kinetograph Company? A. Manager. Q. General manager? A. No, sir. Redirect examination by Mr. Grosvenor: Q. You have just been asked by Mr. Kingsley regarding question and answer given by you in the Greater New Yrork Film Rental Company case at page 4034 as follows: "Q. Yon did not have solicitors, did you? A. No." At the time you gave that answer, were you immediately thereafter asked the following question: "Q. You used to deal with these men yourself? A. They came to our office"? A. Yes, sir. Q. Is there anything you wish to add to any of the answers which you have given, either on direct examination or cross examination? A. In regard to this answer, when I