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 #:
000690
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 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.

C GENERAL INDEX. Ruben, Isaac H. : vol. page Direct Examination V 2709-2714 Cross Examination 2714-2715 Redirect Examination 2715 Ruling of Judge Ray on Question Asked L. M. Swaab by Counsel for Defendants (Vol. II, pp. 897, 932) II 954, 983 Sawin, Chester W. : Direct Examination IV 2292-2298 Cross Examination 2409-2472 Redirect Examination 2472-2474 Sawyer, Arthur H. : Direct Examination II 736 741 Cross Examination 827 830 Scheck, Philip J. : Direct Examination IV 2391-2398 Cross Examination 2398-2401 Redirect Examination 2401 Scherer, Harry W. : Direct Examination V 2606-2611 Cross Examination 2611-2613 Redirect Examination 2613 Recross Examination 2613 Schuchert, J. A. : Direct Examination IV 2009-2034 Direct Examination 2036-2037 Cross Examination 2091-2097 Redirect Examination 2097-2098 Schwalbe, Harry : Direct Examination IV 2138-2148 Cross Examination 2150-2158