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 000139 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 4
Leaf #:
000139
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.

James S. Blackton, Direct Examination. 1989 By Mr. Kingsley : 1 Q. I show you a copy of a letter on the letterhead of The American Vitagraph Company, dated New York, January 12th, 1901, and addressed to Mr. W. E. Gilmore, Edison Manufacturing Company, Orange, N. J. Do you recognize this copy? A. Yes, sir. Q. What is that letter, Mr. Blackton, a copy of what? A. It is a copy of a letter I wrote to Mr. Gilmore after my firm was notified that the agreement which I spoke of just previously about paying royalty to us and using our negatives had been, without any notice to us, cancelled by the 2 Edison Company. Q. Was this letter one you wrote in the way of a protest, or asking for information regarding the act of the Edison Manufacturing Company? A. The letter itself is a protest throughout. Mr. Kingsley: I offer it in evidence. Mr. Grosvexor: I make the same objections, and move to strike out all the answers of the witness relating to this subject, the date of this letter January 12th, 1901, showing that it relates to matters en 3 tirely too remote to have any bearing upon any of the issues in this case. The paper offered is received in evidence and marked "Defendants' Exhibit No. 116/' and is as follows : Defendants' Exhibit No. 116. Letterhead of THE AMERICAN VITAGRAPH COMPANY. 4 New York, Jan. 12th, 1901. Mr. W. E. Gilmore, Edison Mfg. Co., Orange, N. J. Dear Sir: — We are in receipt of a communication from Dyer, Edmonds and Dyer, notifying us that our contract with the Edison Co., dated Oct. 9th, 1900, is cancelled. As we had