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 #:
000446
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.

1064 Joseph Hopp, Direct Examination. Pittsburg Calcium Light & Film Company, 421 Walnut Street, Des Moines, Iowa. Twin City Calcium & Stereopticon Company, 709 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minn. Western Film Exchange, 210 Sycamore Street, Milwaukee, Wis. Montana Film Exchange, 41 N. Main Street, Butte, Montana. Pittsburg Calcium Light and Film Company, 1318 Farnam Street, Omaha, Nebraska. Yours very truly, MOTION PICTURE PATENTS COMPANY. By Mr. Grosvenor: Q. Mr. Hopp, I show you two other letters, dated September 15th, 1909, and September 22nd, 1909, respectively, on the letterhead of the Motion Picture Patents Company, and ask you whether those are two letters received by you from that company (handing papers to witness? A. (witness examining papers) : They are. Mr. Grosvenor : I offer those in evidence. The letter of September 15th, 1909, identified by the witness, is marked Petitioner's Exhibit No. 187, and is as follows: Petitioner's Exhibit No. 187. MOTION PICTURE PATENTS COMPANY 80 Fifth Avenue, New York City. September 15, 1909. Standard Film Exchange, 79 Dearborn Street, Chicago, 111. Gentlemen : You are hereby notified that the following penalty has been imposed upon you for the violation by you of your license agreement: