Start Over

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 000460 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 #:
000460
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.

438 Louis Rosenbluh, Direct Examination. left to each member to set out the substance of the above, as will suit his ideas. Copies of the minimum rental schedule are enclosed. The facts contained in it may be announced to exhibitors. The contracts for members with the manufacturers and the forms of contract and bonds for members to use with customers are being prepared and will be ready next week. A statement for the exhibitors will be ready for distribution in a few days. It will review the whole situation and explain the reason for the change to be made, the entire responsibility for which is taken by the manufacturers. FILM SERVICE ASSOCIATION, By D. Maconald, Secretary. Note. — Information of a general character, and all matters needing the attention of members will be included in Bulletins issued by the Secretary, as it is impossible to address each member personally on all subjects. Kindly read all Bulletins carefully and comply with the requests contained in them at the first possible moment. Mr. Grosvenor: Bulletin No. 2, of February 24th, 1908, Paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8. Mr. Caldwell: All of those bulletins are objected to upon the same grounds, and counsel states that he does not concede that Petitioner's Exhibit No. 00 is any proof that the film manufacturers were members of that association; in point of fact, he is advised that they were not. Mr. Grosvenor: The witness Swanson yesterday testified in the manner I have stated. Bulletin No. 2 of February 24th, 1009, is marked Petitioner's Exhibit No. 100.