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 000192 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 #:
000192
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.

1418 H. N. Marvin, Direct Examination. us or have the other to contend with. My object in writing this letter to you is to let you know how the United Film Co. is threatening me in order to get my patronage. Hoping to hear from you on this same matter soon. I remain Yours very truly — E. W. SPROSTY. AFFIDAVIT. State of Ohio, ) ^ ss * County of Cuyahoga, \ E. W. Sprosty being duly sworn says that on the 17th day of January, 1910, he wrote, or caused to be written to Mr. Mandelbaum of the Lake Shore Film & Supply Co. of Cleveland, Ohio, a certain letter that is hereto attached, marked "Exhibit — A," and the contents of said letter is true. E. W. SPROSTY. Sworn to by the said E. W. Sprosty and by him subscribed to before me and in my presence this 31st day of January, 1910. FRANK E. WINTER, (Notarial Seal.) Notary Public. By Mr. Kingsley: Q. Did you receive, at any time, a request from the Department of the Interior, United States Indian Service, or from any representative of that department, for permission to use a motion picture camera? A. I did. Q. Was there some correspondence with the Department of the Interior, or this representative, regarding this request? A. There was. Mr. Grosvenor: I want to object to all this line of examination on the same grounds as previously stated. By Mr. Kingsley: Q. Was the license granted? A. It was. Q. I show you a letter dated July 2nd, 1910, signed Ferdinand Shoemaker. Did you receive that letter? A. I received this letter.