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 #:
000392
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.

370 Louis Kosenbluh, Direct Examination. 1 cancellation, which is to take place on December 4th, and after that date no film would be supplied to ns. Mr. Caldwell : The witness' testimony as to the contents of the notice is objected to. Q. That is December 4th, 1911? A. Yes, sir. Q. I show you Exhibit No. 4 attached to the petition, which has already been proven in this case, and point to paragraph 19 of that exhibit, being a form of License Agreement between the Motion Picture Patents Company and the rental exchanges. Is that the paragraph to which you have reference? A. Yes, sir. Q. Please state what, if anything, happened after this visit from Mr. Braden? A. I took the letter to Mr. Fox, and told him that we had received a present, and asked him — Mr. Willis (Interrupting) : Surely, we object to that. That is not competent. The Witness (Continuing) : Showed him the letter and o asked him to read it. Q. Please state whom of the Patents Company you saw, and what happened in connection with the license? A. Mr. Fox asked me to go over and see Mr. Waters, and find out from him what it all meant, and he told me he had a conversation with Mr. Waters — Mr. Willis (Interrupting) : The objection still avails? Mr. Grosvenor: Yes. 4 The Witness: Mr. Waters told him no such step would be taken with regard to the cancellation of the license, because he did not consider the sale of the business. To find out whether Waters knows anything about it. I did then go over to the office of the General Film Company, and there again did see Mr. Waters. Mr. Waters received me and asked me what he could do for me — Mr. Caldwell (Interrupting) : Any conversation between the witness and Mr. Waters is objected to.