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 #:
000194
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.

1420 H. N. Miaryin, Direct Examination. Defendants' Exhibit No. 94. Letterhead of DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Office of Indian Affairs, Washington. Jul 15 1910 Moving Pictures Patents Company, 80 Fifth Avenue, New York, N. Y. Gentlemen : The Office is having prepared a series of lectures, illustrated by stereopticon views and moving pictures, on the general subjects of trachoma and tuberculosis. These are for instructing Indians and employes in the Indian Service in the prevention and treatment of these diseases. I wish to make use of the moving picture machine which I understand you operate under a patent, and I request your permission to use it in the work of preventing the spread of disease among Indians. Very respectfully, C. F. HANKE, Acting Commissioner. 7-OGP-14 11435 By Mr. Kingsley: Q. Was this request answered? A. It was. Q. Was the license granted pursuant to it? A. It was. Q. And was the license accepted? A. It was. Q. I show you a copy of a letter dated July 23rd, 1910, addressed to Mr. Ferdinand Shoemaker, signed Motion Picture Patents Company, by George F. Scull, Secretary, ancf bearing at the bottom, the endorsement, "The following license is accepted, Joseph A. Murphy, Medical Supervisor, United States Indian Service, date August 1st, 1910." Is that a copy of a letter, which was sent in reply to the request of the Department of the Interior for license, and is the notation at the bottom a copy of the acceptance of the