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 #:
000360
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.

338 William Pelzer, Direct Examination. motion pictures. Do not supply service for use in this theatre without notice from us. New York, N. Y., Motion Picture Patents Company. Nov. 1, 1912. Form 253. Rev. 1 (Back) GREATER N. Y. FILM RENTAL CO., 116 E. 14th St., New York City. X32 Mr. Willis: Do you intend for the printing on the back of it to be a part of the record? Mr. Grosvenor: The whole of it. The whole of the card, and everything on it. I will ask him some questions about it. By Mr. Grosvenor: Q. Mr. Pelzer, referring to the card just introduced, numbered Exhibit 88, upon this card is printed on the top these words, "Notice to Suspend Service,'' and then follows the name of the theatre, "College Theatre," and "Brooklyn, N. Y.," printed in typewriting, and then in printing these words, "To Exchanges: We hereby notify you not to supply licensed service to the above theatres without notice from us. Motion Picture Patents Company. New York, N. Y.," and then there is printed on the obverse side, "Greater N. Y. Film Rental Company, New York City." Now, this pink card has a puncture, or a round hole at the bottom, similar to holes in cards that are filed in an index system and it also has a number on it, "22718" at the top, that number being in typewriting. Are not these notices, or at least one copy of each notice that you send out, and mind, I am addressing you now, not as a General Film Company officer, but as the Patents Company Secretary — is not a copy of each one of these notices kept, so that you have them together in a box or a drawer, as would seem to be required by the style and type of the card? A. I think so. Q. What does that number "22718"— what does that stand for? A. The exhibitor's number. (}. Then under your indexing or system of cataloging are all the papers respecting that theatre in that number, or is the division of material according to the subject matter?