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 000265 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 #:
000265
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. 243 By Mr. Grosvenor: Q. Exhibit No. 71, being copy of a letter addressed by you to George Kleine, dated November 23, states : "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." Was there some agitation about this time on the question of changing the tariff as applied to films, motion picture films? A. There may have been. I do not recall it. Q. That letter of Mr. Kleine referred to in Exhibit No. 71, being a letter of November 20th, you have not produced. Will you see if you can find that letter? A. I will search again, but I made a thorough search already. Mr. Grosvenor: I offer in evidence a letter dated November 23, 1908, to Frank L. Dyer. Paper marked Petitioner's Exhibit No. 72, and is as follows : Petitioners Exhibit No. 72. November 23, 1908. Frank L. Dyer, Esq., Legal Dept., Edison Mfg. Co., Orange, N. J. Dear Sir: I am pleased to acknowledge receipt of two copies of the manufacturer's agreement. In discussing matters on Saturday with Mr. Philipp, it seemed desirable not to exclude export machines from a payment of royalty, and Mr. Philipp lias drawn the license1 agreement along those lines. This is, however, a matter which we can take up further at a joint conference. I am sending one copy of the agreement to Mr. Philipp. Yours truly, AMERICAN MUTOSCOPE & BIOGRAPH CO. HNM/L. 3