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 000259 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 #:
000259
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. 237 Petitioner's Exhibit No. 68. l KLEINE OPTICAL COMPANY. Projection Apparatus Home Office: 52 State St. Chicago, Oct. 30th, 1908. Mr. H. N. Marvin, 11 E. 14th Street, New York, N. Y. 2 My dear Mr. Marvin: — The Montreal office is hammering us because of the Kinetograph competition, and I enclose telegram received yesterday. The delay in bringing matters to a focus is being borne patiently, but at the same time this question has affected our policy seriously for two months past. A number of important rental points in the United States which I had slated for opening September 1st. were dropped, but if for 3 any reason there should be a hitch in the finish we will have lost valuable time. None of our branch managers know what is going on, and more or less important questions are coming up constantly, and apparent indifference or neglect on my part, is having a demoralizing effect. Among other matters, several leases of our branches are expiring and the question of renewals is being forced upon me. The situation at Montreal is hurting our business, and as there seems to be no conclusion to negotiations, I think that this matter might be taken up with Percy Waters. 4 He cannot expect to hog the entire market, but continued inattention to the situation on my part will not only discourage our Montreal man, but will also prove costly. I do not wish to add to your troubles, but I hope that the main question will be settled shortly. My import orders have been seriously influenced, as we are having a