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)

Page scan 000173 from 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 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 3
Leaf #:
000173
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:
September 12, 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.

H. N. Marvin, Direct Examination. 1399 Mr. Kingsley : I offer them in evidence. Mr. Grosvenor: Same objection. The papers offered are received in evidence and marked "Defendants' Exhibit No. 82," and are as follows: Defendants' Exhibit No. 82. Muskogee Okla., Nov 27 '09 The Monarch Film Exchange, Oklahoma Cy. Okla. Gentlemen : — The enclosed letter addressed to one of our Competitors at Mc.Alester Okla. Explains its-self. You can see by this letter, that the Mitchell Film Exchange is right on our trail, they are doing all they can to down us and aid our competitor. Now that we have given our business to your exchange. We have given Mitchell thousands of dollars worth of business in the last two years. It is true we had to quit him twice and Mitchell made the boast that if we ever quit him again, he would give us competition, that would put us out of business. To show you how earnestly he is going about this he has sent his best man. Mr. Joe Wakelin, to camp right on our trail Mr. Wakelin was here on the night Nov 24th when the Wigwam Theatre started Mitchell service. We were running "The Light That Came" a Biograph. They put this picture on to tie us and run it with "Young Deers Bravery1' an Independent Picture. I am enclosing 2 affidavits to substantiate this statement. Now on Nov 25th they run Selig's "Custer's Last Stand" at Suppertime to try it several persons were there and saw it and as you know Mitchell could not possibly get this picture here with our train service unless he shipped it the night before. This is nothing new for Mitchell, when he is fighting a Competitor, as I recall one instance, where we had a picture we could not place readily and upon looking it up, I found we were running a reel the day it was released or the day before it was released I do not know which. In either event it was shipped out of the Exchange, contrary to the Patents Co.'s rules. If you say so I will look this up and give you the