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 00078 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 #:
00078
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.

696 William Fox, Direct Examination. 1 Petitioner's Exhibit No. 142. "MOTION PICTURE PATENTS COMPANY, 80 Fifth Avenue, New York. February 13, 1913. Greater New York Film Rental Company, 116 East 14th Street, New York City 2 Gentlemen : — YOU WILL PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the arrangement provided for by our letter to you of May 16, 1912, is hereby terminated, such termination to take effect on Friday, February 28th, 1913, at 12 o'clock midnight, and that thereupon your relationship as licensee will actually terminate in accordance with the arrangement provided for by said letter of May 16, 1912. 3 Yours very truly, MOTION PICTURE PATENTS COMPANY. By George F. Scull, Vice-President. GFS-DP." By Mr. Grosvenor: Q. Mr. Fox, you also have interests in the motion picture business in the exhibiting end of the business? A. Yes, sir. Q. How many theatres exhibiting motion pictures have you an interest in? A. At the present time, without considering those in course of construction, and those being used for other purposes, there are fourteen. Q. Do you own a number in New York City? A. I do, sir. By that I mean to say, that I own large blocks of stocks in companies that own theatres in New York. Q. That is what I mean, you are substantially interested? A. In most cases the majority stockholder.