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 3
Leaf #:
000189
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:
July 11, 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. 1415 Mr. Kingslby: I offer it in evidence. Mr. Grosvenor: Same objection. The paper offered is received in evidence and marked "Defendants' Exhibit No. 91," and is as follows : Defendants' Exhibit No. 91. Letterhead of RED MILL THEATRE, Lafayette Ave. Baltimore, March 28th, 1911. Mr. Marvin, c/o Moving Picture Patent Co. Dear Sir: Since our last writing several more points have arisen that we would like to lav before you, so that you can take them into consideration before making your decision in the case. As you are aware the new house has been open for two weeks and during that time we have been compelled to take pictures very much inferior to any we have ever used in our house in our two years of business in the Moving Picture Business. At least six days of this time we have been offered pictures that have been run at the other house and the only choice we have had in the matter was either "take these or run Commercial Reels". This we have been doing, in other words instead of running G & 12 day old pictures as per our agreement with the Exchange, we have been running for example Tuesday, March 21st. Eleven days & Seventy-two day old pictures, which you can readily see is quite a contrast to what we have been accustomed to running in our house. Thursday, March 23rd, and yesterday, March 27th, we both had on the same pictures, thereby losing quite a large number of our customers. On Saturday, March 25th, our representative went to the Exchange and they again offered us pictures that had been run by the New House. When our man protested he was informed bv one of the men in charge of the Film