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 (1914)

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:
1914
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 5
Leaf #:
000477
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 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.

Anna S. Matthews, Direct Examination. 2927 By Mr. Kingsley : Q. Were these cards, Miss Matthews, which you sent out, what are known as "return postal cards?" A. Yes, sir. Q. Were you in charge of the checking of the list of motion picture theatres in the United States which you have testified was done or or about July 3rd, 1911? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you employ then substantially the same method you employed when correcting the list at the preceding checking? A. Yes, sir. Q. Were you in charge of checking the lists of the Motion Picture Patents Company prepared by the Motion Picture Patents Company, as you have testified, on December 18th, 1911, July 7th, 1912, and July 21st, 1913? A. Yes, sir. Q. What system did you follow in making those subsequent checkings and revisions of the Motion Picture Patents Company's lists under your charge? A. We followed substantially the same system as in the January and July, 1911, checkings, with the exception that we used — I might add on these subsequent checkings we used Form 183 and Form 315. Q. Have you Form 483 and Form 315? A. Yes, sir. Do you want the letter we sent out with Form 315? Mr. Kingsley: Yes; I offer in evidence Form 183, and Form 315 with the letter accompanying it. Form 183 produced by the witness, and offered in evidence, is marked by the Examiner, "Defendants' Exhibit No. Ill," and Form 315, with the letter attached produced by the witness, and offered in evidence, is marked by the Examiner, "Defendants' Exhibit No. 112, Sheet 1," and "Defendants' Exhibit No. 112, Sheet 2," and said exhibits are as follows :