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)

Page scan 000172 from 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 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 #:
000172
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 12, 2024
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.

1398 H. N. Marvin, Direct Examination. reels (Repeaters). We had, Going to the expence notifying by Phone from our city returning to us another reel. At times they would do so. holding our show back several hours. Thinking best to make a complaint to the Patent Co. He also wrote that we complained to the Patent Co. and in doing so he demanded we cancel service. We have the letters in our possession. We wrote him and phoned him numerous times and the answer we received was — this is all your contract calls for. We were to get the same service as the Cresent Moving Picture Parlor at the same price. Our feature reel to be about fifteen Days old. (Sat. Sept, 31, show.) The Way of the World. Feature 1. An Uncle By Marriage. Late for lunch. Mothers choice, commercial. no title, no sprocket holes, in a condition that it would not go through the machine. Second reel trifle better third reel which he calls Commercial which has been in the neighborhood 3 times you are aware of the anove reels that we could not be successful by running a show like that. Please answer this letter as soon as posibly. Your Respectfully, Per John Carter, mgr. The Brodie Theatre 1118 Light St. Baltimore, Md. By Mr. Kingsley: Q. I show you a letter dated Muskogee, Oklahoma, November 27th, 1909, and signed "Yale Amusement Company of Oklahoma," accompanied by a letter dated Little Rock, Arkansas, November 20th, 1909, signed Mitchell Film Exchange, and accompanied by affidavits signed by R, B. Smith and Arthur Cooley, under date of November 27th, 1909, and I ask you if this letter and the accompanying letter and affidavits were received by you? A. Yes.