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 #:
000204
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.

2 1430 H. N. Marvin, Direct Examination. St. Louis. He became quite a large owner of theatres in that vicinity, and he used the licensed motion pictures at his exchange largely for the benefit of his own theatres, or those he was interested in, to the detriment of competing theatres. His ownership in theatres became so large that during 1910, about the middle of the year, he, apparently conceiving the idea of going into the production of motion pictures — Mr. Grosvenor: I object to all of this testimony as incompetent, immaterial, and irrelevant, and further, for the reasons stated yesterday. The Witness (continuing) : — on his own account — Mr. Grosvenor: These objections to apply to all testimony of this character of this witness, relating to all these exchanges referred to by him in giving his testimony in which he is using this memorandum, so I won't have to repeat these objections. 3 The Witness (continuing) : — and to this end he endeavored to form a conspiracy on the part of several other licensed exchanges, the effect of which was that these exchanges should, by concerted action, surrender their licenses, and proceed to produce and manufacture motion pictures and distribute them to exhibitors in defiance of the patents owned by the Patents Company. Mr. Grosvenor: What is the date of this alleged conspiracy, has that been mentioned by you? 4 The Witness: I said that it was in the middle part of the year 1910. By Mr. Kingsley: Q. Have you finished your answer? A. No. In view of this condition of affairs, the license of the St. Louis branch