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 3
Leaf #:
00074
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.

1300 H. N. Marvin, Direct Examination. Transportation charges on film returned will be paid by the manufacturers and importers. Shipments should be made by freight unless manufacturers and importers request exchanges to ship by express. For the convenience of exchanges, we will permit them to ship to the manufacturers and importers between September 1st and September 10, 1909, the quantity of film which, under the terms of their license agreement, they are required to return on September 1st. Bills of lading or shipping receipts must be mailed to the manufacturers and importers not later than September 10th, 1909. MOTION PICTUKE PATENTS COMPANY. By Mr. Kingsley: Q. I show you Exchange Bulletin No. 20, under date of December 7th, 1909, and ask you if that is a bulletin, or a copy of a bulletin, sent out by the Motion Picture Patents Company, on or about that date. A. It is. Mr. Kingsley: I offer it in evidence. The Exchange Bulletin offered in evidence, is marked "Defendants' Exhibit No. 12,' ' and is as follows : Defendants' Exhibit No. 42. MOTION PICTURE PATENTS COMPANY 80 Fifth Avenue New York City December 7, 1909. RETURN OF FILM. It has been represented to us by a number of exchanges that started in business comparatively recently, that it would be a hardship upon them to return to the various manufacturers an amount of film equal to that leased by them during the seventh preceding month, for the reason that the only film in their possession is in a satisfactory condition for further use, and they have offered to return to the manufacturers a corresponding amount of film purchased by them