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 #:
00084
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.

62 Bulletins to Rental Exchanges. 1 If you are serving any of the licensed exhibitors upon (he second list mentioned, place your exchange number opposite such exhibitors and return the list to us at once. Also furnish us by return mail with a list of any customers you are serving who do not appear upon either of the two lists enclosed. During the present month and until such time as our records are brought up-to-date, every Exchange must keep on file at all times a complete list of customers which list should be arranged in the same manner as the list furnished by us, alphabetically, according to the state, town and street address. 2 LIST OF CUSTOMERS— MARCH 8, 1909. At the close of business on Monday, March 8th, every licensed Exchange must furnish to the Patents Company a complete list of the customers being served at that time. This list must be arranged alphabetically according to location— state, town or city and then street address, in the same form as the list which the Patents Company furnishes to you enclosed. These lists will be a final check upon the records in this office and you will be notified of any differences at once. CURRENT ROYALTIES. All licensed Exchanges will receive notice immediately after March 8th of their licensed customers if any, who have not paid the |6.00 royalty due upon that day, so that the service to such customers may be discontinued immediately. All service to licensed exhibitors must be subject to the exhibitor paying at the stated periods the royalties required by the Patents Company, and every licensed Exchange must remain free to discontinue promptly upon notice from the Patents Company that the roj^alties have not been paid. CORRESPONDENCE. Up to the present time it has been impossible for the Patents Company to keep pace with the numerous communications received from both the licensed Exchanges