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 #:
000139
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. 117 picture projecting machines manufactured or supplied by the Gaumont Company of New York after June 20th, 1910, are not licensed by this Company and must not be used by exhibitors licensed by this Company. Motion pictures made by the Societe des Etablissements Gaumont of Paris, France, and imported and suplied by Geo. Kleine of Chicago are licensed and may be used by licensed exhibitors. MOTION PICTURE PATENTS COMPANY. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 53. Exhibitors' Bulletin— No. 12. MOTION PICTURE PATENTS COMPANY 80 Fifth Avenue New York City May 29th, 1911. Please take notice that after June 1st, 1911, a portion of the motion pictures supplied to you is likely to be on the ordinary film stock in place of the non-inflammable film stock that has been generally used during the past two years. After the above date, Exchanges will have the option of specifying either the ordinary or non-inflammable stock when ordering from manufacturers. MOTION PICTURE PATENTS COMPANY. By Mr. Grosvenor: Q. This Exhibit No. 34 {supra, p. 87) which I show you, being a letter dated January 22, 1909, addressed to the exhibitors of moving pictures, that was the notice, which yon sent out to the exhibitors, of the formation of the Patents Company, and of the License Agreements which you had adopted? A. Yes, that appears to be such a notice. Q. And the blank attached to this exhibit, entitled "Exhibitor's Application" was the copy of the application or