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)

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 #:
000548
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.

1166 Michael Lessy, Direct Examination. 1 By Mr. Grosvenor: Q. Now, I show you a telegram signed Motion Picture Patents Company, addressed to Frank A. Fisher, Grand Amusement Company. Was that Frank A. Fisher, Grand Amusement Company, one of your customers? A. Yes, sir; that was one of our customers. Q. Where did you get that telegram? A. This customer, when he got the telegram, came into the exchange, and he cancelled the service, and we asked him the reason why, and he showed us this telegram from the Motion Picture 2 Patents Company, notifying him that the license of the Philadelphia Film Exchange is terminated, and therefore, he says, I just have to take care of my theatre, and I must make other arrangements. Mr. Grosvenor: I offer that telegram in evidence. The paper referred to was marked by the Examiner, "'Petitionjer's Exhibit No. 216," and is as follows : Petitioner's Exhibit No. 216. 3 NIGHT MESSAGE. THE WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY. — Incorporated — (Part of telegraph form omitted.) 2p n c 34 Paid Night 1216am SD New York, Feb 26-09. Frank a Fisher Grand Amusement Co., 5206-8 Market St Phila. 4 Today we notified Philadelphia film exchange that its license with this company will terminate March 15th 1909 after which date they will not be authorized to supply licensed film. Motion Picture Patents Co. By Mr Grosvenor : Q. Did you come over to New York in connection with