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 #:
000452
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.

430 Louis Rosenbluh, Direct Examination. 1 witness on page 3G1 of the record and Mr. Caldwell's objection in folio 1 of that page. The paper is marked Petitioner's Exhibit No. 97, and is as follows: Petitioner's Exhibit No. 97. ALL BULLETINS SHOULD BE FILED. Bulletin No. 27. October 5, 1908. 2 FILM SERVICE ASSOCIATION. 4 Note. — Bulletins issued by the Executive Committee are private communications to members of the Association only. RETURN OF FILM POSTPONED TO JANUARY 1, 1909. 3 The following letter, which explains itself, has just been received at the Association Office: Edison Manufacturing Company, Orange, N. J., October 3rd, 1908. Dwight Macdonald, Esq., Secretary Film Service Association, 15 William Street, New York, N. Y. Dear Sir: I have to inform you that the manufacturers of licensed film have decided to extend the time for the enforcement of the return of old film purchased from them, which should have begun October 1st, under the agreements to the exchanges, to January 1st, 1909, the manufacturers believing that this will be a concession to the exchanges. Yours very truly, FRANK L. DYER, General Counsel.