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)

Page scan 000227 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:
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 6
Leaf #:
000227
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.

Harry N. Marvin, Direct Examination. 3255 Picture Patents Company? A. Mr. Scull, I believe, was acquainted with my intention of sending such a notice, and our attorneys, Messrs. Leventritt, Cook & Nathan, under whose direction the form of the notice was prepared. Those, I believe, were the only ones who had any knowledge of the notice prior to its being sent out. Q. At page 250 of the printed record, in Petitioner's Exhibit 77, which purports to be an extract from testimony given by you July 9th, 1910, in a suit brought by the Motion Picture Patents Company against the Chicago Film Exchange, occurs the following question and answer : "Q15. What proportion of the annual product of motion picture films manufactured and sold in this country is put out by the licensees of the Edison patent in suit? A. About 90 per cent, of the films manufactured and sold in this country are put out by licensees under the Edison patent above referred to. By licensees, T refer to the ten licensees above named.1' Have you any explanation or amplification to make of that answer? A. Well, that answer was limited, of course, to motion pictures manufactured and sold or leased in this country. It did not refer to motion pictures imported into this country, and it did refer to the motion pictures sold in this country for export. By Mr. Kingsley: Q. In Defendants' Exhibit 52, page 1357, Vol. Ill, which is a letter written by C. C. Allen, of Newberg, Oregon, to the Motion Picture Patents Company, he complains of the business tactics and principles and practices of one H. C. Stevens, Do you know what exchange was owned or managed by H. C. Stevens? Mr. Grosvenor: Is that a letter that you introduced ? Mr. Kingsley: Yes. Mr. Grosvenor: I make the same objection to that question which I made to the exhibit when it was introduced bv counsel for the defendants.