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 #:
000428
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.

1016 A. J. Clapham, Cross Examination. 1 By Mr. Kingsley: Q. I show you a letter dated January 24th, 1910, on the letterhead of the Theatre Film Service Company, 76 and 78 Second Street, San Francisco, and I ask you if the signature is yours (handing paper to witness)? A. (witness examining paper) : Yes, sir. Mr. Kingsley: I offer it in evidence. The paper identified by the witness is marked Defendants' Exhibit No. 25, and is as follows: 2 Defendants' Exhibit No. 25. THEATRE FILM SERVICE CO. ( Incorporated ) 76 and 78 Second Street. San Francisco, 1/24/10. (Part of letterhead omitted.) Motion Picture Patents Co., 80 Fifth Ave., 3 New York. Gentlemen : — I regret, that at the last moment I am unable to make the trip to New York during the Film Service Convention, several matters requiring my personal attention having come up during the last few days, making it impossible for me to do so. Yours truly, 4 THEATRE FILM SERVICE COMPANY, Per A. J. Clapham. AJC/MH. Rubber stamp : Received Feb. 1, 1910. Ansd. None — S. By Mr. Kingsley: Q. Do you remember the date of the letter notifying