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 #:
000593
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.

DEFENDANTS' EXHIBIT No. 158. 3035 Non State Licensees Licensees Total Differences Florida 51 46 97 5— Alabama 47 32 79 15— Mississippi 45 35 80 10— Louisana 81 73 154 8— Oklahoma 88 141 229 53 Arkansas 46 67 113 21 Texas 193 220 413 27 New Mexico 20 16 36 4— Colorado 74 79 153 5 Wyoming 19 12 31 7— Montana 39 42 81 3 Arizona 24 19 43 5— Utah 51 39 90 12— Nevada 17 11 28 6— Idaho 55 32 87 23— California 395 239 634 156— Oregon 119 91 210 28— Washington 142 113 255 29— Total 6571 6298 12869 273— By Mr. Kingsley : Q. On the occasion of your first examination, February 24th, 1914, you furnished a statement as of July 21st, 1913, showing the number of places in cities of a hundred thousand population and oyer in which motion pictures were exhibited, and which is in evidence marked "Defendants' Exhibit No. 145." Did you also prepare, in the course of your duties, statements covering cities of the same size in the United States, relating respectively to the checkings of October 31st, 1910; January 30th, 1911; July 3, 1911; December 18th, 1911, and July 7th, 1912? A. Yes, sir. Q. Are the five tabular statements which I show you, the statements prepared under your supervision and direction, and to which you referred in your preceding answer? A. Yes, sir. The five papers offered in evidence by counsel for