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 #:
000584
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.

3026 Defendants' Exhibit No. 154. The five papers produced by the witness and offered in evidence by counsel for the defendants are marked by the Examiner respectively, "Defendants' Exhibit No. 154," "Defendants' Exhibit No. 155," "Defendants' Exhibit No. 156," "Defendants' Exhibit No. 157" and "Defendants' Exhibit No. 158," and are respectively as follows: Defendants' Exhibit No. 154. STATEMENT AS OF OCTOBER 31, 1910, SHOWING 2 NUMBER OF PLACES IN THE UNITED STATES IN WHICH MOTION PICTURES WERE EXHIBITED. ( Separated as to Licensees and Non-licensees of the Motion Picture Patents Company.) Non State Licensees Licensees Total Differences Maine 30 43 73 13 New Hampshire 33 15 48 18— Vermont 30 22 52 8— Massachusetts 167 91 258 76— Rhode Island 21 13 34 8— Connecticut 62 35 97 27— New York 637 371 1008 266— New Jersey 170 125 295 45— Pennsylvania 689 360 1049 329— Delaware 14 4 18 lO Dist. of Col. 42 31 73 ll— Maryland 82 58 140 24— Virginia 50 35 85 15— West Virginia 59 37 96 22— Ohio 469 320 789 149— Indiana 224 203 427 21— Illinois 386 401 787 15 Kentucky 50 71 121 21 Michigan 174 171 345 3— Minnesota 87 73 160 14— Wisconsin 42 170 212 128 North Dakota 19 18 37 1— South Dakota 15 27 42 12