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 000257 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 #:
000257
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.

Harry N. Marvin, Direct Examination. 235 Petitioner's Exhibit No. 66. 1 October 5th, 1908. Mr. Thos. Armat, Hutchins Bldg., Washington, D. C. Dear Mr. Armat : Replying to yours of the 2nd, I enclose you herewith a letter addressed to Messrs. Swartzell, Rheem & Hensey. I ^ am sending this letter to you in order that you may hand it to these gentlemen, as you failed to give me their Washington address. Nothing new has transpired in the moving picture situation, but we understand that negotiations are in progress between the Edison Company and their licensees, and we anticipate an early decision in the matter. I shall be glad to advise you as soon as there is anything to report. Very truly yours. By Mr. Grosvenor: Q. In this letter you state "Nothing new has transpired in the moving picture situation, but we understand that negotiations are in progress between the Edison Company and their licensees, and we anticipate an early decision in the matter." By the term "Edison Company and their licensees" you refer to the manufacturers and importers who had taken out licenses from the Edison Company in the early part of 1908? A. I do. Q. The next paper I show you is copy of a letter dated Oct. 24, 1908, addressed to Mr. Frank L. Dyer, Legal Department, Edison Mfg. Co. That is a copy of a letter written by you to Mr. Dyer (handing paper to witness)? A. (Witness examining paper.) I assume that it is. Mr. Grosvenor : I offer it in evidence. Paper marked Petitioner's Exhibit No. (i7, and is as follows :