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 (1914)

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:
1914
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 5
Leaf #:
00045
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.

Petitioner's Exhibit No. 254. 2495 combine; what they are to do and how they can overcome the difficulties now besetting them. At present we have no means of knowing. All we can say is, have patience. You may go out of business on March 1 (the time limit set), or you may not. There is a trite saying that "He urfio laughs last laughs long" and the last laugh is not yet laughed. On other pages we have given the opinions of the press, and ask our readers to peruse those, and if they can glean any comfort from them, it is their's. One way out of the difficulty is for those renters who stand to lose their all to join with a concern already in the combine and act as agent or sub-office until such time as the strain is made less tense. We feel sorry for those renters who were so shortsighted as to refuse, till too late, to join the United Film Association. We urged them, by voice and peu in these columns, to get in line, but, "Qui Bono" you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink; and now they must pay $5,000 and wait one year for admittance. Who's to blame? Who is left out? The manufacturing firms not in the above combine are, in America : American Biograph, New York ; Baker Manufacturing Company, Chicago; Payne Company, Rochester; Goodfellow Manufacturing Company, Detroit; O. T. Crawford Company, St. Louis; Penn Manufacturing Company, Pennsylvania, and Cameraphone Company, New York. Abroad, with American representatives: Urban Eclipse Company, London; Warwick Trading Company, London; Carlo Rossi, Italy; Gaumont Company, Paris, and Theo. Pathe, Paris — represented by Kleine Optical Company. Society Italian Cines, Rome; Williamson & Co., London — represented by Chas. Dressier Company. Cricks & Sharp, London; Sheffield Photo Company, Sheffield; General Cinematograph Company, London; Hepworth & Co., London — represented by Williams, Brown & Earle. In addition to these, there are two or three firms who import films, Swedish, Danish, German and Norwegian firms. It was stated at the convention that Geo. Eastman had signed an agreement not to supply any of the above firms with film. We did not see the agreement, nor could we learn of anyone who had. Our advice to our readers is : Do not be unnecessarilv