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 #:
00037
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.

Harry N. Marvin, Direct Examination. 15 Mr. Grosvenor: I offer in evidence four separate agreements of December the 18th, 1908, being the preliminary agreements referred to in the testimony of the witness relating to the assignments of patents to the Patents Company by the Edison Manufacturing Company, American Mutoscope and Biograph Company, the Armat Moving Picture Company, the Vitagraph Company of America which are marked respectively Petitioner's Exhibits Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 5. Counsel for the defendants produced these documents at the request of the Government. It is agreed by counsel that Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. being the agreement between Motion Picture Patents Company and Edison Manufacturing Company dated December 18, 1908, is a copy of Exhibit 2 attached to the petition and that said Exhibit 2 to the petition may be used subject to correction. The original Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, is returned to counsel for defendant. It is agreed that Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. being the contract dated December 18, 1908, between the Patents Company and the American Mutoscope and Biograph Company, is a copy of the Exhibit No. 1 attached to the answer of the Biograph Company, and counsel for the Government refers to that exhibit to the Biograph Company's answer and therefore Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3 need not be copied. It is agreed that Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4. dated December 18, 1908, between Patents Company and the Armat Moving Picture Company is a copy of the agreement attached as Exhibit No. 1 to the answer of the Armat Moving Picture Company, and need not be copied and said original copy of said agreement is returned to the defendant's counsel.