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 000464 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 #:
000464
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.

442 Louis Rosenbluh, Direct Examination. The Executive Committee was informed that counsel would proceed with the prosecution of further cases embracing other localities and a uniform policy will be adopted of pressing on suits wherever the evidence justifies action. 2. The Cleveland Film Renting Exchange at Cleveland, 0., just prior to the Executive Committee's meeting, announced that it had gone over to the opposition and would use hereafter unlicensed film. C. H. Peckham, formerly a member of the Executive Committee, was replaced upon the Executive Committee by Wm. H. Swanson, of Chicago, 111. Mr. Swanson attended the meeting on Saturday, the 21st, in place of Mr. Peckham. Mr. Grosvenor: Bulletin No. 14, April 20th, 1908, is offered in evidence. The paper is marked Petitioner's Exhibit No. 102, and is as follows: Petitioner's Exhibit No. 102. ALL BULLETINS SHOULD BE FILED. Bulletin No. 14. April 20, 1908. FILM SERVICE ASSOCIATION Executive Committee Meeting. The Executive Committee had a meeting in New York City on April 17th and 18th, at which time replies to Bulletin No. 12 which asked for an expression of opinion by members of the Association on the minimum rental schedule were taken up. Of 110 memberships, replies from which have been received, 00 had expressed themselves in favor of maintaining the schedule, and 20 had asked that it be withdrawn.