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 000261 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 #:
000261
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. 230 pushing this matter along without a moment's loss of time, but Mr. Philipp thinks some modification in the license forms desirable. We have agreed upon all of the terms and Mr. Philipp is putting the matter in final shape. I have strong hopes that something definite will be accomplished this week, and owing to the critical condition of affairs, I dislike to raise any points that might possibly develop any feeling. I am satisfied that now that Phillip has taken up the matter in earnest, the affair will move forward to a rapid conclusion. I shall probably have occasion to write you again in this matter in a day or two. Meantime, I can only beg you to exercise such patience as the circumstances seem to recommend. Yours very truly, HNM/REL. Q. In this letter Mr. Kleine states: "My dear Mr. Marvin. The Montreal office is hammering us because of the Kinetograph competition, and I enclose telegram received yesterday." What does he refer to there? A. Mr. Kleine was at that time conducting a rental business in Canada, and the Kinetograph Company, a rival concern, was also renting film in Canada. Q. Was that an exchange that was selling the Edison film? A. The Kinetograph Company? Q. Yes. Renting the Edison films? A. I think it was renting the Edison films as well as some others. Q. That is, of the Edison licensees? A. I think so, but I am not positive of it. Q. It was not representing the Biograph interests, anyway? A. Well, I think the Biograph Company was supplying some films to it, but I am not sure upon that point. Q. He goes on: "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 1 had slated for opening September 1st were dropped, but if for any reason there should be a hitch in the finish we will have lost valuable time. None of our