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 #:
000499
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:
September 21, 2023
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, Redirect Examination. HIT Q. Is this the agreement which you signed? A. Yes, 1 sir, that is the agreement. Mr. Kingsley: I offer it in evidence. The paper offered is marked Defendants' Exhibit No. 33, and is as follows: Defendants9 Exhibit No. 33. MOTION PICTURE PATENTS COMPANY. 80 Fifth Avenue, New York. 2 December 31st, 1912. In consideration of the Motion Picture Patents Company granting me a license to use a projecting machine in the Majestic Theatre, 1215 Fifth Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pa., I hereby agree that so long as I remain a licensee of the Motion Picture Patents Company, I will use or permit to be used on my projecting machine, only motion pictures licensed by the Motion Picture Patents Company. R. Solz. File, J. B. d By Mr. Kingsley: Q. Since you signed that agreement you have been receiving licensed motion pictures, have you not? A. Yes, sir. Q. And you are showing them to audiences in Pittsburgh? A. Yes, sir. Redirect examination, by Mr. Grosvenor: Q. Before you went down to New York, Mr. Solz, did you have any conversation with any of the officers of the General Film Company at Pittsburgh on this general subject of furnishing licensed films? A. Yes, sir. Q. Please state who the officer was, or the employe was, and what the conversation was.