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 #:
000468
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.

1086 Edgar Thorp, Direct Examination. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 201. MOTION PICTURE PATENTS COMPANY. 80 Fifth Avenue, New York City. August 16th, 1911. Orpheum Theatre, Titusville, Pa. Gentlemen : — You are hereby notified that your license has been cancelled for exhibiting unlicensed motion pictures. Yours truly, MOTION PICTURE PATENTS CO. JB/EMD By J. B. By Mr. Grosvenor: Q. Mr. Thorp, had you displayed in your theatre in July, 1911, these two feature films named in the letter of the General Film Company to you, namely, "The Burning of Rome," and the "Coronation of King George and Queen Mary?" A. We had. Q. Were those films that were made by any of the licensed manufacturers? A. They were unlicensed. Q. They were not made by the licensed manufacturers? A. They were not made by the licensed manufacturers. Q. You state in your reply to their complaint, talking about features, "You will recall that we requested this service of your exchange, informing you that Ave were going to run feature night each Thursday night with a five-piece orchestra, and you advised that you could not give us any feature reels/' You may state whether or not it is the fact that you secured these feature reels named after you had been advised by the General Film Company that they could not give you features? A. We did. Q. In their reply, their letter being dated August 11th, 1911, Petitioner's Exhibit 200, they state: "We have noted your request for feature reels, but as all feature films which