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 000615 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 #:
000615
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.

Frank J. Howard, Direct Examination. 1841 expense in collecting it, and an additional expense in keep 1 ing books in regard to it. Q. And what did Mr. Dyer say, at that time, about its collection? A. I will think over that now for a moment. I believe at that time they did business direct with the exhibitors, and that was changed over afterwards to the exchanges taking charge of it. Q. You mean that at first it was agreed that the Patents Company would collect direct from the exhibitor? A. Yes, sir. Q. What, if anything, was said, at that meeting, in reference to the so-called fourteen days' cancellation notice clause in the exchange license agreement? A. Yes, there was a clause to that same effect brought up there, and what they wanted to — well, let me see — the fourteen-day clause — I have to think a moment on that, you will have to pardon me. Q. Well, I will put another question: The committee, or some member of that committee, wanted that clause eliminated, didn't they? A. Yes, sir, that was so. Q. And what did Mr. Dyer say about that? A. I could not remember now, his exact words. I can't remember o what that part was. Q. Did he say it would not be enforced? A. Oh, no. Mr. Grosvenor: I object to that as leading. The Witness: We were always given to understand that it would be enforced, the fourteen-day clause, for any violations of the license, or anything of that kind. By Mr. Caldwell: Q. Are you prepared to say, Mr. Howard, that Mr. 4 Dyer told you, or any other member of the committee, at that time, that that clause would not be enforced? Mr. Grosvenor: Object to the form of the question as leading, the witness having stated that he didn't recall what Mr. Dyer stated. The Witness: No, sir; he did not.