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 #:
000203
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:
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.

Lewis M. Swaab, Direct Examination. 821 the Philadelphia Exchanges to meet me in your office on Tues 1 day next. Yours truly, LEWIS M. SWAAB. Mr. Grosvenor: And the letter addressed to Mr. J. A. Berst, December 23rd, 1910. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 152C. Dec. 23d, 1910 Mr. J. A. Berst, 41 W. 25th Street, New York City, N. Y. My dear Sir: — Confirming my message by letter and telegram last week I called at your office on Wednesday last and was informed that you could not be seen, having an important meeting to attend. Yesterday, I received a letter dated December 21st, (the day I called at your office), in which the Patents Co. request me to call on them on Tuesday next to show cause why my license should not be cancelled because of alleged violations of their rules. I do not know by whom I am accused nor am I concerned as to the identity of the scoundrel since there are many identified with the film business today who would not hesitate to use perjury to further their own interests. I regret that you could not see me on Wednesday and presume you will attend the meeting on Tuesday above referred to. I am in receipt of a letter from a customer in the South in which he advises me that Tom Moore, your representative I believe in Washington, D. C. reports that the General Film Co. have no intention of buying my Exchange as they intend to "freeze me out/' This is the identical report made by the former proprietors of the three Exchanges in this city. They do not know how to guard their tongues for Calehuff is said to have reported today that I have been censured by the Patents Co. and that I am to be tried by them next week. It is time that this deplorable condition of affairs should