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 #:
000447
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.

Joseph Hopp, Direct Examination. 1065 First, you are required to pay to this Company a fine of one thousand ($1000.00) dollars; Second, you are required to discontinue licensed service to all theatres owned or controlled by the Standard Amusement Company or by the Standard Film Exchange, and you are not permitted to again supply service to any theatres owned or controlled by this company or by the Standard Film Exchange; Third, you are required to terminate the connection of Mr. Thompson with your Company, and not to again employ him. Yours truly, MOTION PICTURE PATENTS COMPANY HNM/JK By H. N. Marvin, V. P. The letter of September 22nd, 1909, identified by the witness and offered, is marked Petitioner's Exhibit No. 188, and is as follows: Petitioner's Exhibit No. 188. MOTION PICTURE PATENTS COMPANY 80 Fifth Avenue New York City September 22nd, 1909. Standard Film Exchange, 79 Dearborn St., Chicago, 111. Gentlemen : Replying to yours of the 18th addressed to our Western Committee, the requests contained in your letter were considered at the meeting of the Manufacturers yesterday, and it was decided that you would be permitted to make payment of the $1,000 penalty by making monthly payments of $200 each, payments to be made on the first of each month, beginning with the first of October. It was further decided that yon would not be permitted to supply service to the two houses mentioned by you, so long as these houses were controlled by your company, but 2