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 00072 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 #:
00072
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.

690 William Fox, Direct Examination. 41 West 25th Street New York Nov. 20th, 1911. G. N. Y. Film Co., New York City. Gentlemen, We have been advised by the Motion Picture Patents Company that your License Agreement with the said Concern will terminate on Monday, Dec. 4th. We have therefore been instructed to discontinue delivery of films to you on or after the above date. We regret very much that we have to discontinue business relations with you in this line. Wishing you the best success and thanking you for past favors, we beg to remain, Yours very truly, PATHE FRERES, per M. Ramiraz Tonel MR/CR. By Mr. Grosvenor : Q. Have you any other letters received at this time? A. Well, pursuant to the last conversation with Mr. Kennedy, I received their contracts and a bill of sale. Q. Did you subsequently sell out your business, or did the matter fall through? Please state. A. I gave the papers sent to me by the General Film Company through Mr. Kennedy, to my attorneys, Rogers & Rogers — Mr. Kingsley : I suggest, if you do not mind, that you answer the question and not go into a dissertation on the subject. By Mr. Grosvenor : Q. Did you finally execute the bill of sale to them? A. I was disadvised to do that.