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 000358 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 #:
000358
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.

336 William Pelzer, Direct Examination. mitted to, unless they want to have their own license cancelled. Q. You are not permitted to? A. No, sir, not under our license. Q. Then the General Film Company stops distributing films to any exhibitor after it has received notice from the Patents Company that the exhibitor's license has been cancelled? A. Yes, sir. Q. You are Secretary of the Patents Company as well as Treasurer of the General Film Company? A. Yes, sir. Q. I wish you would produce a statement, or furnish a list of all the theatres whose licenses have been cancelled by the Patents Company, and that list should give the dates of cancellations and the locations of the theatres — A. How soon do you want it? Q. Well, you have all that sort of matter tabulated at the Patents Company office? A. Why it would take months to get that out, Mr. Grosvenor. Q. Do you mean there have been so many theatres whose licenses have been cancelled? A. Well, theatres are changing constantly of their own volition, from one class of theatre to another, as well as being cancelled for violation. Q. Now, I show you a card — a pink card — let me ask you if that is a notice sent out by the Patents Company? A. That appears to be one of the forms sent out by the Patents Company. Mr. Grosvenor: I offer the pink card entitled "Notice to Suspend Service" and marked Petitioner's Exhibit No. 88, in evidence. It reads as follows :