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 #:
000471
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.

Louis Rosenbluh, Direct Examination. 449 Petitioner's Exhibit No. 104. 1 MOTION PICTURE PATENTS COMPANY 80 Fifth Avenue, New York July 21st, 1911. Greater New Yrork Film Rental Co., 116 E. 14th St., New York, N. Y. 2 Gentlemen : — You may supply service to the Dalury & Bulabusses's Brooklyn Hall, Coney Island, provided you get from these people a written agreement that they will not hereafter exhibit any unlicensed film, or that they will not loan or subrent licensed film so long as they remain licensees of this Company. If you supply service please watch your reels carefully to see that no opportunity is afforded these people for sub-renting. o Yours truly, MOTION PICTURE PATENTS COMPANY By H N N HNM/LMM X-32 ]>y Mr. Grosvenor: Q. That was received by you in the course of mail from .4 the Patents Company? A. Yres, sir. Mr. Caldwell: These two letters, July L3th and July 21st, Exhibits No. 108 and 101, air objected to as incompetent, immaterial and irrelevant. Q. This second letter, Exhibit No. 104, refers to Dalury ami another, Brooklyn Hall, Coney Island. Have you something to say about that incident? A. Yes, sir. I will say