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 #:
000430
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.

1048 A. J. Clapham, Cross Examination. the letterhead of the Theatre Film Service Company, 76 and 78 Second Street, San Francisco, California, and ask you if your signature is appended at the end (handing paper to witness)? A. (witness examining paper) : Yes, sir. Q. You dictated this letter, did you not? A. I don't know. It does not show the dictation marks on it. Q. At any rate, you signed it? A. I believe I signed the letter. It looks like my signature. Mr. Kingsley: I offer it in evidence. The paper offered is marked Defendants' Exhibit No. 27, and is as follows: Defendants' Exhibit No. 27. THEATRE FILM SERVICE CO. (Incorporated) 76 and 78 Second Street. (Part of letterhead omitted.) San Francisco, Feb. 11, 1910. The Motion Picture Patents Co., 80 Fifth Ave., New York City, N. Y. Attention of G. F. S. I am in receipt of your letter of the 4th instant and regret to state that although I had made preparations to attend the film service convention, even to the extent of wiring the Hotel Imperial for hotel accommodations, conditions prevented my making this trip. I would like at this time to make such explanations to you as may enable you to handle matters of a similar kind in the future. In the first place, I have been unfortunate during the past year in the matter of employing certain men, who took advantage of the fact that certain competitors here were anxious to make things as warm as possible for me, and they having been discharged from my employ for good reasons, promptly seized the opportunity for making as much trouble as possible. The many complaints regarding this office during the past year can be traced to