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 #:
000467
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.

Edgar Thorp, Direct Examination. 1085 of two good reels on those nights in addition to our regular 1 service. Kindly let us hear from you at once and oblige. Yours truly, Edgar Thorp. (Copy.) Petitioner's Exhibit No. 200. 2 GENERAL FILM COMPANY. Licensees of Motion Picture Patents Co. MOVING PICTURE MACHINES. (Part of letterhead omitted.) Pittsburgh, Pa., August 11, 1911. Mr. Edgar Thorp, Franklin, Pa. Dear Sir: — We are in receipt of yours of the 10th instant, and in reply wish to advise that the films which were exhibited at your Titusville house on July 20th were unlicensed, and therefore, should not have been shown in your theatre. This matter has been called to our attention by the Motion Picture Patents Company, and it may be possible that your license will be canceled on this account. We would suggest that you use only licensed pictures hereafter, as it may be possible that they will overlook the first offense but will undoubtedly cancel your license If a thing of this kind happens again. We have noted your request for feature reels, bur as all feature films which we have have been shown in Titusville, we have nothing further to offer. Yours very truly, GENERAL FILM COMPANY, W. T. Kinson, WK — L Branch Manager. 3