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 000361 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 #:
000361
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.

William Pelzer, Direct Examination. 339 You understand the question? A. Yes. I am not certain just how those cards are arranged; that is a matter that I have nothing to do with and that comes under the jurisdiction of the Auditor of the Patents Company. Q. This notice is a printed notice simply notifying the exchanges "Not to supply service to the above theatre without notice from us." Why does not that notice give some reason for the termination of the service? A. Well, I don't know, I don't think they ever did give them any reasons, except to indicate that the license has been cancelled. Q. And thereafter, if any of the exchanges to whom this notice was sent supplied an exhibitor, or a theatre named on a card with service, the exchange's license was subject to cancellation? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, the card marked Exhibit No. 89, which is a pink card printed in the same way, except that the body of the card contains fuller language, it says: "To Exchanges: The license for the use of a projecting machine in the above theatre has been cancelled for exhibiting unlicensed motion pictures. Do not supply service for use in this theatre without notice from us." By the term "exhibiting unlicensed motion pictures,'' you mean exhibiting film of any manufacturer who is not licensed by the Patents Company? A. Yes, sir. Q. And this also is a form of a common notice sent out by your company? A. Yes, sir. Q. I wish you would give me a list of the theatres whose licenses have been cancelled in the years 1909, 1910, 1911 and 1912, for the reason that such theatres had exhibited film of manufacturers not belonging to the Patents Company licensees, such list to show the location of the theatres and the dates of cancellation. A. Yes, sir. Q. Have there been a great many of such theatres? A. I could not say. As I said before, those are constantly changing, that notice you have there, for some theatres might have been reinstated two or three times since then. It is an endless job to go over all of those old cards. Q. You terminated the service in this way and then sometimes reinstated the theatre? A. They have been reinstated, yes, very frequently. Q. And then, if they committed the offense again you cancelled the license again? A. Yes, sir. Q. And you repeat the process until you arc sure it is either going to be wholly good, or will be wholly bad, is that