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 000426 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 #:
000426
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.

104:4 A. J. Clapham, Cross Examination. 1 Defendants' Exhibit No. 23. Feb. 4th, 1910. (Copy.) Mr. A. J. Clapham, Theatre Film Service Co., 76-2nd St., San Francisco, Cal. Dear Sir: We regret very much that by reason of your failure to attend the Film Service Convention we were unable to take up with you personally the matter of the sale of the film referred to in some of our past correspondence. Your letter of January 11th was duly received. The statements therein relate entirely to short-length new film, which was not the kind of film referred to in ours of January 5th. Our information is very definite on the point that the Amusement Supply Company has sold outright some film in full reels, some of which was released before the Patents Company began business. Under the Exchange License Agreement, however, all film in the possession of any exchange to which a license was granted became subject to the conditions of that License Agreement, and the Theatre Film Service Co. has no right, therefore, to sell any such film outright, either directly or through the Western Amusement Supply Company. We might state, in passing, that even such film as you obtained from the Enterprise Optical Manufacturing Company may be sold only to bona fide travelling exhibitors. We particularly wish to know under what circumstances you sold the reel of old film containing "Hypnotist's Joke" "A Man of Straw" and "A Canadian Car Ride" and also whether or not you have sold any other film under the same or other circumstances. This matter has now been hanging fire for a long period, and we suggest that you give this matter your promptest attention. Yours verv truly, MOTION PICTURE PATENTS COMPANY, By GFS/JK