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 000266 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 #:
000266
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.

241 Harry N. Marvin, Direct Examination. By Mr. Grosvenor: Q. This is a letter dated November 23rd, addressed to Frank L. Dyer. You state: "I am pleased to acknowledge receipt of two copies of the manufacturer's agreement." That sentence referred to preliminary drafts of the license agreement with the manufacturers subsequently entered into with the Patents Company? A. I think it referred to agreements with manufacturers of projecting machines. Mr. Grosvenor: I offer in evidence letter dated November 24, 1908, addressed to Mr. Thomas Armat. Paper marked Petitioner's Exhibit No. 73, and is as follows : Petitioner's Exhibit No. 73. November 24, 1908. Mr. Thomas Armat, Hutchins Building, 3 Washington, D. C. Dear Mr. Armat : In reply to yours of the 23rd, I do not know that the postponement of the meeting with the Film Service Association has anything to do with the combination negotiations. Matters have been delayed by the absence of Mr. Eastman and by changes in the forms of contract suggested by Mr. Philipp, attorney for Pathe. While matters are progressing much more slowly than could be desired, we have not detected any 4 unreasonable delay on the part of any of the parties, and we hope for a speedy settlement. I am glad to note you have arranged your affairs in a satisfactory manner, so that you can go ahead without delay. Yours very truly, HNM/L.