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 #:
000423
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.

A. J. Clapham, Cross Examination. 1041 By Mr. Kingsley: 1 Q. I show you a copy of a letter on the letterhead of the Theatre Film Service Company, dated January 11th, 1910, addressed to the Motion Picture Patents Company at 80 Fifth Avenue, New York, and ask you if the signature is yours, or the signature of your representative (handing paper to witness)? A. (witness examining paper): That is my signature, I believe. Mr. Kingsley: I offer it in evidence. The paper identified by the witness is marked 2 Defendants' Exhibit No. 22. Defendants' Exhibit No. 22. THEATRE FILM SERVICE CO. (Incorporated) 76 and 78 Second Street ( Rest of letterhead omitted. ) San Francisco, 1/11/10. 3 Motion Picture Patents Co., 80 Fifth Ave., New York City. Gentlemen : We beg to advise receipt of your letter of January 5th in which you advise us that either the Theatre Film Service Co. or the Western Amusement Supply Co. have been selling film outright and we would like to state that the Theatre Film Service Co. has never sold one foot of film since the formation of the Motion Picture Patents Co. and we have been rigidly adhereing to all of the agreements signed in our license contract and in no instance have we violated any of the conditions therein. For your information, however, I would state that the Western Amusement Supply Co., a separate corporation, but controlled by the same parties, has been selling such films as listed in their catalogue, a copy of which we are sending you under separate cover. This film is furnished us by the Enterprise Optical Manufacturing Co. of Chicago, and all