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 000488 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 #:
000488
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.

466 Louis Rosenbluh, Direct Examination. 1 Please give us your opinion of the advisability of licens ing the above Exhibitor. Yours very truly, MOTION PICTURE PATENTS COMPANY. By G. E. J. GEJ/MQ X32 2 By Mr. Grosvenor: Q. You have also produced a lot of letters in a cover entitled "Advertising matter and correspondence in regard to special features." I show you a letter dated October 18th, 1912, addressed to you, and signed by the Erbagraph Company. Will you please read that and state what you are able to about that incident? Mr. Caldwell: That document is objected to on the ground it is correspondence between the witness and a third party, and is not binding upon any of the defendants in this case. Mr. Grosvenor: I will not mark that letter. By Mr. Grosvenor: Q. Please answer the question — what you remember about it? A. I had been unable to satisfy this party — Q. (Interrupting) : Just name the party? A. The Comet Theatre, Miss Emma Erb, Manager. Mr. Willis: I object to the witness looking at the document, unless it is offered in evidence. It is not a memorandum in his handwriting. The Witness : Upon request by Miss Erb for the supply of specials, I informed her that we did not have those subjects advertised "exclusively supplied by the General Film Company," but I would make an effort to get it from one of the other exchanges — which I did, and found that I could not get any. The excuse was there were not any available. I then told her to go over to any office of the Gen