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 00070 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 2
Leaf #:
00070
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.

688 William Fox, Direct Examination. 1 Petitioner's Exhibit No. 138. MOTION PICTURE PATENTS COMPANY 80 Fifth Avenue, New York December 1st, 1911 Greater New York Film Rental Company, 116 East 14th Street, New York City. Gentlemen : 2 Referring to our letter of November 14th, notifying you of our intention to terminate your license on the fourth day of December, Nineteen Hundred and Eleven, we hereby notify you that said notice of termination is hereby withdrawn. Yours truly, MOTION PICTURE PATENTS COMPANY By H. N. Marvin Vice Pres. HNM/ACL. 3 X-32 By Mr. Grosvenor : Q. You may state whether or not Mr. Kennedy said anything to you at any of these conferences between you and him in regard to the size of his company or its extent or in respect to the relations of your company, the competition of your company in the trade, with his company? A. At the last conference had, when the transfer or the sale was agreed upon, he said, "Well, that is the finish of my work. This is the end of what I set out to do. You have been the last man in the field, and now with our satisfactory arrangement between you and the General Film Company, my work is practically ended." He said, "You realize that this was not done through any personal animosity to you at all or because we did not like you. It was done because the General Film Company had to have the field to itself as it prepared and as it set out to do, at the very beginning, and you were a stumbling block. You were in constant competition with us, and that