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 2
Leaf #:
00074
Language:
English
Collection:
Early Cinema and Government & Law
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:
June 13, 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.

692 William Fox, Direct Examination. 1 dated December 7th, 1911, signed H. N. Marvin, Vice-President (indicating) ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Which you have referred to? A. Yes, sir; no sale, no license. Mr. Kingsley: I move to strike that out as comment. Mr. Grosvenor : I offer that in evidence. Mr. Kingsley : I object to that as incompetent, immaterial and irrelevant, and not binding on the defendants, because no connection has been proved between the conversation which Mr. Rogers had with Mr. Kennedy, pursuant to the directions of the witness, and the Motion Picture Patents Company as represented by Mr. Marvin. The paper is marked Petitioner's Exhibit No. 110, and is as follows: Petitioner's Exhibit No. 140. MOTION PICTURE PATENTS COMPANY 80 Fifth Avenue, New York December 7th, 1911. Greater New York Film Rental Company, 116 East 14th Street, New York City, N. Y. Gentlemen : Pursuant to the right reserved by this Company under the first clause of Section Nineteen of the Conditions of License forming part of the Exchange License Agreement existing between you and this Company and bearing date the eighteenth day of January, Nineteen Hundred and Nine, we hereby notify you of our intention to terminate said license and that the same will terminate at eight o'clock A. M. on Monday the twenty-fifth day of December, Nine