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 #:
000170
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.

1 1396 II. N. Marvin, Direct Examination. with tlie exception of but one day, and kept up the fight until after Mr. Shower of the Royal Theatre quit exhibiting licensed films. Yours very truly, HAL. B. CLARKE. By Mr. Kingsley: Q. I show you a letter dated Sacramento, California, December 19th, 1910, signed H. Wolff. Did you receive that letter? A. I did. Mr. Kingsley : I offer it in evidence. Mr. Grosvenor : Same objection. The paper offered is received in evidence and marked "Defendants' Exhibit No. 80," and is as follows : Defendants' Exhibit No. 80. Sac Calif. Dec. 19-10. Motion Picture Patents Company. Dear Sirs: In a letter of Dec. 12th you asked if the Lyric Theatre, is the same Theatre that J. H. Thomas, is manager of. In reply I will say that Mr. Thomas has been out of the Lyric and lias nothing to do with the Lyric, for the last year, I also wish to state, that about a year ago I took charge of the Lyric Theatre and was using license pictures before coming to Sacramento. I ran a house in San Francisco, and use nothing but license pictures for I have always prefer license picture to any other as I think they are far superior to other pictures but the exchanges in San Francisco ran things in such a manner that things were very unsatisfactory with me, no matter how I tried, or what I offered for service, I was sure to show pictures after the other houses, and the result was, that my business dropped away to nothing and had it kept up I would of had to close my place of bnsi7i ess, and now while I am writing, it seems strange to me that a vast concern the same as the patents company can not arrange matters so that the exhibitor would get an even brake, as much as I would like to use license pictures