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 #:
000213
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.

H. N. Marvin, Direct Examination. 1439 Defendants' Exhibit No. 97. 1 Letterhead of THE LAEMMLE FILM SERVICE 196-198 Lake Street Chicago, April 12, 1909. Mr. Geo. Hines, Chicago, 111. Dear Sir: 2 I have quit the Motion Picture Patents Co. Today I wrote them a registered letter giving them notice of my withdrawal. At the same time I made arrangements for a huge supply of new films from the International Projecting Company representing nearly thirty manufacturers not controlled by the Patents Company. Each week hereafter I will add to my already enormous stock of films and will do the greatest film renting business in the world, without a doubt. Before making this important move, I gave the matter .. more careful consideration and more searching investigation than I ever gave anything in all my life. I know I have done the right thing! The Patents Company insisted that I should arbitrarily discontinue serving films to all exhibitors who had not paid the so-called license. This, of course, was a thing I wouldn't do for any man or any set of men on God's footstool. What an asinine chump I would be to dump overboard the very exhibitors who have helped me build up the most far-reaching rental business in all the world. Reason number one. Reason number two is that I can noAv give 3*011 a greater 4 variety of subjects to select from — all new — all clean — all drawing cards — all high class — not one that doesn't pass inspection by the Chicago Police Department. Reason number three is that all license nonsense is wiped out. You and I can deal with each other, man to man, without outside interference and in a square, upright manner. I want to know if vou won't write me a letter or tele