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 #:
000284
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:
September 21, 2023
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.

902 George W. Bennethum, Direct Examination. 1 By Mr. Geosvenor : Q. That letter simply states a cancellation of the license. I show you a copy of a letter, dated November 20th, 1911, addressed to the Motion Picture Patents Company. Please state whether that is a copy of a letter written by you in response to the letter just put in evidence and sent to the Motion Picture Patents Company (handing paper to witness). A. (witness examining paper) : Yes, sir. Mr. Grosvenor: I offer that in evidence. 2 The paper offered is marked Petitioner's Exhibit 169 and is as follows: Petitioner's Exhibit No. 169. GEO. W. BENNETHUM, Operator of Motion Picture Parlors. Home Office, No. 645 Penn Street. 3 Reading, Pa., Nov. 20, 1911. (Names of different "Parlors" omitted in printing.) Motion Picture Patents Co., 80 Fifth Avenue, New York City. Gentlemen : — Your letters of November 15th addressed to me at my different theatres received and contents noted. Will you kindly inform me for what reason my licenses were can. celled. Thanking you in advance for this information, I remain, Very truly yours, G. W. B.