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 #:
00085
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:
May 23, 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.

Harry N. Marvin, Direct Examination. 63 and licensed exhibitors, but we wish to assure you that there has not been the slightest intention to disregard correspondence. However, in a few days, the Exchange correspondence and within a week the exhibitors correspondence, will be covered, after which time we will have a sufficient organization to promptly reply to all correspondence. MOTION PICTURE PATENTS COMPANY. By Mr. Grosvenor: Q. Exhibit No. 15, being dated February 26, contains the following: "The Patents Company today notified the following Exchanges that on and after March 15, 1909, the license agreement they had entered into with this company would be terminated,'' with the following names : "Philadelphia Film Exchange ; Wm. H. Swanson & Co. of Chicago; Wm. H. Swanson & Co., of Omaha; Wm. H. Swanson & Co. of St. Louis." This Exhibit was a circular or bulletin which was sent out to all the rental exchanges. Is not that correct? A. I believe it was, yes. Q. When the Patents Company cancelled the license of an Exchange, it was customary for it to send a notice to all the other Exchanges of the cancellation of the Exchange? A. Yes. Q. And it was also customary, was it not, for the Patents Company to send a notice to all of the customers of the Exchange whose license was cancelled, that the license of that Exchange had been cancelled? A. It was customary to notify the customers of the Exchange wrhen the license of the Exchange was cancelled, so that the customer could be advised and look to a proper source to obtain licensed film. Q. So that in this case, you not only sent all the rental Exchanges notice of Swanson & Company's license having been cancelled, but you also sent Swanson & Company's customers notice of that fact? A. I cannot say definitely as to that case, because that was not always done, but it was frequently done.