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 (1913)

Page scan 000512 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:
1913
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 2
Leaf #:
000512
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.

1130 J. M. Ensor, Direct Examination. 1 Petitioner's Exhibit No. 205. THE WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY. Incorporated. (Part of telegram form omitted.) RECEIVED at 1114 to 1118 17th St., Denver, Colo. 72 NY. MO. 60. New York Sep't 14-10. 2 Colorado Film Exchange Company, 320 Charles Bl'g, DENVER, COLO. The license granted by this company to yon to Sublease licensed Motion Pictures is hereby cancelled for violation on your part of its terms and conditions relating to the use of such pictures and we notify you to return all licensed motion pictures to the respective licensed manufacturers and importers thereof upon the expiration of twenty days from this date. 3 Motion Picture Patents Company. 11 :50 A. M. 90 Lake St., Chicago, 111. By Mr Grosvenor : Q. I show you a mimeographed or multigraphed letter, on the letterhead of the General Film Company, dated Denver, Colorado, September 15, 1910. State whether or not that was a letter issued to the trade in your territory about the time stated in the letter. Mr. Kingsley: Objected to as calling for the conclusion of the witness, and manifestly not within his knowledge. The Witness : Yes, sir. By Mr Grosvenor : Q. Where did you get that letter? A. Some of the ex