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)

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 #:
000286
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:
May 23, 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.

2G4 Minutes, General Film Co. company, was brought up by the Chairman at the request of Mr. Howard of that company, and he was invited into the meeting to state his position. Mr. Howard stated in substance that he misunderstood the nature of the money payments and that he supposed notes with interest would be given in lieu of cash. Mr. Howard also informed the Board that certain legislation had been under way in the State of Massachusetts and that his exchange and the Kleine Optical Co., of Boston, and certain exhibitors, had employed the services of an attorney to look after the interest of the moving picture business in that State, and that the attorney's fees would amount to about |1,()00.00. He suggested that in view of the fact that the efforts of this attorney would work to the benefit of the General Film Co., he and his associates should be reimbursed for this amount. M(r. Howard thereupon left the meeting and the Board proceeded to a discussion of the questions brought up. The Chairman pointed out in detail the purchase proposition which had been made by the Executive Committee to representatives of licensed exchanges and that this proposition was the same in each case and that it was in each case accepted as outlined by the Executive Committee and that Mr. Howard appeared to fully understand the proposition then, and that no other claim of this nature had been made. After a full discussion, the Chairman put the question as to whether or not the company would pay interest on deferred money payments, and it was unanimously voted that no interest would be paid on such deferred money payments. The Chairman then put the question as to whether or not the company should make any change in the amount of Preferred Stock and deferred money payments for the purchase of the Howard Exchange, and it was unanimously voted that no change should be made in that respect. The Chairman then put the question as to whether or not there should be any change in the deferred money payments, and it was unanimously voted that no change should be made. The question of the payment of tin1 attorney's fees referred to by Mr. Howard was thereupon discussed and it was, on motion duly seconded, unanimously noted that this company reimburse Mr. Howard and the interested parties for the attorney's fees to the extent of f 1,000.00.