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 #:
000495
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.

Reuben Solz, Cross Examination. 1113 Q. And then you say your license was cancelled, is that right? A. After I ran in an independent picture. Q. Did you or not come to New York with your lawyer to see anybody at the Patents Company offices in connection with the cancellation of the license of your theatre? A. Yes. Q. About what time did you come over? A. It was the end of December, 1912. Along there. Q. Whom did you see at the Patents Company office on this subject? A. I believe a gentleman by the name of Braden. Q. Do you see him in the room here? A. Yes, sir. That gentleman over there (indicating Mr. Braden). Q. Please state what was said at the offices of the Patents Company on the subject of the cancellation of your license? A. They objected to my running any independent pictures and on that reason they cancelled my license. Q. Did you ask whether the cancellation could not be revoked? A. I did. Q. And what was said, if anything? A. If I signed a contract that I will not run any others but association pictures, licensed pictures. Q. That if you signed a contract on those terms, you could get a new license? A. I would be reinstated again with a new license. Q. Did you sign any such paper? A. I did; I had to. Mr. Kingsley: I object to that as a conclusion of the witness, and I move to strike it out. By Mr. Grosvenor: Q. Since then what pictures have you handled? A. I am handling the licensed now. Q. Are the larger theatres in Pittsburg licensed or independent theatres? A. The very big ones — I don't know what they are running. Sometimes they are running independent, sometimes the licensed. I don't know about the small ones. Cross examination, by Mr. Kingsley: Q. When did you take out a license with the Patents