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 #:
000625
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.

J. C. Graham, Cross Examination. 1243 Mr. Grosvenor: There are certain things which either the Patents Company or Mr. Pelzer has been asked to produce, as appears on the record already, but have not yet been produced. Mr. Kingsley: Here is the list of theatres cancelled on account of exhibition of unlicensed motion pictures (producing list). Here is the refusal to grant licenses (producing list). Here is the suspension of service list (producing list). Mr. Grosvenor: Counsel for the defendant produces, at the request of counsel for the Government, the following statement, dated 3/21/13, entitled "Licenses cancelled on account of exhibition of unlicensed motion pictures," and I offer it in evidence. The list offered is marked Petitioner's Exhibit No. 235, and at the request of counsel for the Government, is not spread upon the record, but the same, by consent of counsel, is left in his custody. Mr. Grosvenor: I offer in evidence statement dated 3/25/13, entitled "Refused to grant licenses," the same being a list of the theatres to which said Motion Picture Patents Company refused to grant licenses. I offer it in evidence. The list offered is marked Petitioner's Exhibit No. 236, and at the request of counsel for the Government, is not spread upon the record, but the same, by consent of counsel, is left in his custody. Mr. Grosvenor: I offer in evidence statement dated 3/25/13, entitled "Suspension of service, no reason being stated in the notice," such list being a list of theatres whose names were sent to the exchanges with statement that they should not be supplied with service. The list offered is marked Petitioner's Exhibit No. 237, and at the request of counsel for the Government, is not spread upon the record, but the same, by consent of counsel, is left in his custody. Mr. Grosvenor: The defendants also produce statement showing names of theatres whose licenses were cancelled on account of renting or subletting licensed motion pictures, dated March 25th, 11)13, and I offer it in evidence. The list offered is marked Petitioner's Exhibit No.