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 #:
000498
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.

1116 Reuben Solz, Cross Examination. 1 that the letter notifying you of the termination of your license? A. Yes, sir. Mr. Kingsley: I offer it in evidence. The paper offered is marked Defendants' Exhibit No. 32, and is as follows: Defendants' Exhibit No. 32. MOTION PICTURE PATENTS COMPANY 2 80 Fifth Avenue, New York November 21st, 1912. Mr. R. Solz, Majestic Theatre, 1215 — 5th Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pa. Dear Sir: We hereby notify you that we withdraw the offer con„ tained in our letter of November 6th, and we are cancelling your license for exhibiting unlicensed motion pictures. Yours truly, MOTION PICTURE PATENTS COMPANY. By J B JB/ACL. E 5510— E By Mr. Kingsley: Q. Now, Mr. Solz, when you came to New York and had a conversation with the representatives of the Motion Picture Patents Company, they told you that so long as you observed the conditions of your agreement with them, you could continue to receive licensed pictures, did they not? A. Mr. Braden told me the only way I can obtain the license is by signing the agreement, which I have signed. Q. Did you consult your attorney before you signed the agreement? A. I did.