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 00056 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 1
Leaf #:
00056
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.

34 Harry N. Marvin, Direct Examination. Patents Company under its patents, and infringers of any of these patents will be vigorously prosecuted. January 9, 1909. MOTION PICTURE PATENTS COMPANY, 10 Fifth Avenue, New York City. By Mr. Grosvenor: Q. At this meeting of December 18th, 1908, at which the license agreements were executed, the so-called license exchange agreements were considered by the manufacturers, were they not? I refer to the exchange agreement executed with the Patents Company with these different rental exchanges? A. I do not recall that that agreement was discussed at that meeting. Q. Was it read at the meeting? A. Not according to my recollection. Q. When was this exchange agreement, being Exhibit No. 4, to the petition, adopted? A. I think that was adopted shortly after the meeting of December 18th, I do not remember the exact date. It is admitted that Exhibit No. 4 to the petition is a true copy of the so-called exchange license agreement, entered into between Motion Picture Patents Company and the Rental Exchanges. Q. Mr. Marvin, I wish you would read over this letter of January 12, 1909, which has been marked "Petitioner's Exhibit No. 8? A. I have read the letter. Q. When the Patents Company was formed, each of these rental exchanges were required to send to the Patents Company a list of their customers? A. If they took a license, yes. Q. And also certain information respecting each of the theatres? A. Yes. Q. That is the size of the theatre, a general description of it, and the number of seats? A. The seating capacity of the theatre and the make of the projecting machine. Q. Will you please produce a copy of the form which was