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 #:
000614
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.

1232 J. C. Graham, Direct Examination. 1 Petitioner's Exhibit No. 231. YALE FILM EXCHANGE COMPANY, Offices, Rooms 506-14 inclusive, Navarre Bldg., 604 Chestnut St., St. Louis, Aug. 1st, 1910. BULLETIN #2 To all Moving Picture Exhibitors in St. Louis, and surrounding territory: — Gentlemen : — We recently addressed a circular letter to you calling attention to our having secured a license from the Motion Picture Patents Company, giving us the privilege of renting licensed film in St. Louis and adjacent territory. You were also advised direct by the Official Bulletin issued from the office of the Motion Picture Patents Company of our appointment as their sole licensee for the City of St. Louis and adjacent territory. „ In our circular we called your attention to the cancella tion by the Patents Company of the licenses formerly held by the O. T. Crawford Film Exchange and by the Western Film Exchange of this City. You were also advised direct by the Motion Picture Patents Company through the medium of their Official Bulletin of the cancellation of the Crawford and Western Exchange licenses. The information received from us and from the Patents Company is official and is to be depended upon. Rumors have reached us today that certain parties are circulating reports here in the City to the effect that the ^ Crawford and Western Exchange expect to be reinstated or granted new licenses by the Patents Company. This is a joke !' While we have no doubt, the Exchanges in question would be glad to secure the reinstatement of their licenses, in fact, they would probably welcome a reinstatement; yet the fact remains, there is ABSOLUTELY no possibility of either of these Exchanges being reinstated by the Patents Company. They are out and out for good, and such reports as reach you to the contrary you can rest assured are absolutely without truth or foundation.