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 000264 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 #:
000264
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.

242 Harry N. Marvin, Direct Examination. Mr. Grosvenor: I offer in evidence letter of November 23, 1908, to Mr. George Kleine. Paper marked Petitioner's Exhibit No. 71, and is as follows: Petitioners Exhibit No. 71. November 23, 1908. Mr. George Kleine, Kleine Optical Company, 52 State Street, Chicago, 111. My dear Mr. Kleine: I have yours of the 20th. The revision of the licensee's agreement by Mr. Philipp, the attorney for Pathe, coupled with the two weeks absence of Mr. Eastman, who is a factor, has involved a great deal of delay, and has called for a considerable re-adjustment of the technical form of the papers. I am glad to say that I believe the general scheme has been materially improved, and I see no reason whatever to apprehend any failure of the final consummation. The general conditions to be covered have not been materially altered, and I suppose it will interest you most to have me say that your own position will not be in any way less favorable to you. The greatest diligence is now being exercised by all parties, and I am very hopeful of a prompt settlement. In view of this I believe your best interests will very soon lie in the direction of the highest possible tariff on imported goods. The attorney of the Eastern Company for supplying films for the manufacturer of titles is not in any way significant. Please keep this letter entirely confidential, even from your business associates, and any others who are directly interested in the affair, as my remarks are intended for your personal information only. Very truly yours, AMERICAN MUTOSCOPE & BIOGPiAPH CO. IINM/L.