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 000490 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 #:
000490
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.

3342 Pettioner's Exhibit No. 220. ACTION. COURT. DATE. Biograph Co. vs. Benjamin Marks, Biograph Co. vs. Walter Rosenberg, Edison Mfg. Co. vs. Walter Rosenberg, Selig Polyscope Co. vs. Walter Rosenberg, Essanay Film Mfg. Co. vs. Walter Rosenberg, Vitagraph Co. of America vs. Walter Rosenberg, Kalem Co. vs. Walter Rosenberg, Lubin Mfg. Co. vs. Walter Rosenberg, Edison Mfg. Co. vs. Walter Rosenberg, Kalem Co. vs. Walter Rosenberg, Biograph Co. vs. Anthony Jenelli, Selig Polyscope Co. vs. Carrick & Burnstein, doing business as Federal Film Co., Biograph Co. vs. Pechette, Kalem Co. vs. Pechette, Pathe Freres vs. Wm. Morris, Inc., Pathe Freres vs. Wm. Hammerstein, Pathe Freres vs. Fulton Amusement Co., Pathe Freres vs. Wm. Morris, Inc., Pathe Freres vs. Wm. Hammerstein, Pathe Freres vs. Fulton Amusement Co., Pathe Freres vs. Miner & Marion's Jardin de Paris Girls Co., Selig Polyscope Co. vs. Advance Amusement Co., Selig Polyscope vs. Burkett & George, Kalem Co. vs. Sellers et al., American Mutoscope & Biograph Co. vs. Burkett & George, Pathe Freres vs. Burkett & George, Pathe Freres vs. Horowitz, Lubin Mfg. Co. vs. J. Stamford, Pathe Freres vs. Kohler, American Mutoscope & Bio. Co. vs. L. P. Saul, Edison Mfg. Co. vs. Samuel McKim, Edison Mfg. Co. vs. Wm. Erwin, Municipal Court, City of Feb. 24, 1910 New York, 1st District Municipal Court, City of Mar. 8, 1910 New York, 1st District Municipal Court, City of Mar. 8, 1910 New York, 1st District Municipal Court, City of New York, 1st District Mar. 9, 1910 it Mar. 8, 1910 Mar. 12, 1910 Mar. 17, 1910 << M Apr. 15, 1910 Apr. 20, 1910 u M Apr. 25, 1910 « « Apr. 28, 1910 Common Pleas, Dauphin Mar. 26, 1909 Co., Pennsylvania Common Pleas, Philadelphia Co., Pennsylvania «< << Common Pleas, Philadelphia Co., Pennsylvania Common Pleas, Allegheny Co., Pennsylvania Common Pleas, Allegheny Co., Pennsylvania Mar. 25, 1909 Mar. 12, 1909 Mar. 13, 1909 Mar. 13, 1909 Mar. 12, 1909 Mar. Mar. 11, 1909 11, 1909