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 1
Leaf #:
00023
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.

IN THE District Court of the United States, For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. United States of America, Petitioner, No. 889 Sept. Sess., 1912. Motion Picture Patents Co., and others, Defendants. Decree Appointing* Examiner. It appearing that the above entitled cause is at issue on the petition and answers and replication heretofore filed, Now, therefore, upon motion of counsel for the petitioner, and by consent of the parties: It is ordered that Edward Hacker, of the City of Philadelphia, be and he is hereby designated and appointed as Special Examiner, to take and report to the Court the evidence adduced or offered by the petitioner and the defendants respectively, with full authority as such Special Examiner, according to the rules and practice in such case made and provided; That said Examiner give notice by mail to counsel for the respective parties of his appointment herein, and of the time and place when and where he will attend for the purpose of hearing such testimony as may be adduced; and that notice be given by the respective counsel or solicitors to the opposing counsel or solicitors, or parties by mail, or personally, of the time and place of the examination for such reasonable time as the Examiner may fix or order in each case; That said Examiner may, when necessary or convenient for the respective parties, continue said hearings from