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 000121 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 #:
000121
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.

Bulletins to Exhibitors. 99 effect of an opposite policy. It is the intention of the Com 1 pany to inflict hardship on no one, but by the active exercise of the above principles and a rigorous enforcement of the conditions established by it for the use of the films and apparatus covered by its numerous patents to save the business in this country from the demoralization with which it has been threatened by the activity of parties having little or no investment at stake in this country and whose only object is to reap a temporary harvest at the expense of the manufacturer, the exhibitor and the public. The exhibitor by accepting a license and licensed service from the Patents Company divests himself of no right and is free to renounce the license and abandon service whenever he may consider such a course to be to his advantage, in which case he will be in exactly the same position as if he had never been licensed. MOTION PICTURE PATENTS COMPANY. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 39. MOTION PICTURE PATENTS COMPANY 10 Fifth Avenue New York City Frank L. Dyer, President H. N. Marvin, Vice-President J. J. Kennedy, Treasurer George F. Scull, Secretary D. Macdonald, General Manager Telephone, 1352 Gramercy New York, February 2, 1909. Dear Sir: We regret that at this time it is not possible to personally reply to your comunication which we have received