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 #:
000485
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.

Defendants' Exhibit No. 144. 2935 State Licensees Delaware 8 Dist. of Columbia . 40 Maryland 59 Virginia G5 West Virginia G9 Ohio 440 Indiana 238 Illinois 552 Kentucky 94 Michigan 209 Minnesota 134 Wisconsin 130 North Dakota 26 South Dakota 36 Iowa 186 Nebraska 106 Missouri 266 Kansas 137 North Carolina ... 55 South Carolina ... 23 Tennessee 76 Georgia 51 Florida 47 Alabama 43 Mississippi 66 Louisiana 118 Oklahoma 92 Arkansas 63 Texas 269 New Mexico 16 Colorado 80 Wyoming 20 Montana 71 Arizona 27 Utah 57 Nevada 19 Idaho 60 California 359 Oregon 104 Washington 127 Total 6867 Dn-Licensees Total Differences 19 27 11+ 22 62 18— 116 175 57+ 86 151 21 + 101 170 32+ 520 966 86+ 356 594 118+ 663 1215 111+ 104 19S 10+ 299 508 90+ 186 320 52+ 223 353 93+ 46 72 20+ 52 88 16+ 289 475 103+ 185 291 79+ 380 646 114+ 258 395 121 + 77 132 22+ 36 59 13+ 65 141 11— 94 145 43+ 71 118 24 + 74 117 31+ 38 104 28— 103 221 15— 177 269 85+ 73 136 10+ 338 607 69+ 20 36 4+ 111 191 31 + 16 36 4— 37 108 34— 31 58 4+ 70 127 13+ 9 28 10— 55 115 5— 373 732 14+ 127 231 23 + 166 293 39+ 8306 15173 1439 +