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 #:
000521
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.

William H. Swanson, Cross Examination. 499 Defendants' Exhibit No. 1. ALL BULLETINS SHOULD BE FILED. Final Bulletin No. 39. January 9, 1909. FILM SERVICE ASSOCIATION. Note. — Bulletins Issued by the Executive Committee Are Private Communications to Members of the Association Only. REPORT of ANNUAL MEETING, JANUARY 9, 1909. The annual meeting of the Film Service Association was held at the Hotel Imperial, New York City, on Saturday, January 9, 1909. Mr. James B. Clark, the President, called the meeting to order, and after the roll-call it was ascertained that over one hundred memberships were present or represented by proxy. The minutes of the last meeting were read and approved as was also the report of the Treasurer, showing that the Association had a cash balance on hand on January 8, 1909, of $17,519.18. REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE. The meeting then listened to the report of the Special Committee, Messrs. Robert Lieber, Harry Davis. A. J. Gilligham, Mr. Wurzer and Carl Laemmle, which had conferred with the officers of the Motion Picture Patents Company regarding the conditions contained in the new license agreements. Tins Committee was appointed at the informal meeting of the Association held on Friday, January 8, 1909, at whieh the new features in the license agreements were very thoroughly explained and discussed. Messrs. Lieber and Gilligham both spoke for the Committee, and advised the meeting that the new conditions were in the main satisfactory, and that the Patents Company's license