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 6
Leaf #:
000522
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.

3374 Petitioner's Exhibit No. 274. the decision was arrived at, made some protest against the license of the Greater New York Film Company being cancelled? A. I don't recall any. Q. Then immediately after you made your statement, at that meeting, was there acquiescence by all those who were present, that the license of the complainant be cancelled? A. No; I should say there was quite a fairly lengthy discussion about it. Q. Was there a single individual in that room who expressed the opinion that the license of the complainant should not be cancelled? A. Well, there were some who expressed the regret that it should be necessary to do it, because they would lose business by losing a customer, but I don't know that their final conclusion was that it should not be cancelled; I don't recollect any one who took a definite position of that sort. Q. Immediately after that meeting was held, you sent the first notice of cancellation to the complainant, did you not? A. It was either, I think, on that day or the day following. I would not be sure about that. Q. Who did you speak to about the license of the complainant, after you sent the notice of withdrawal, and before you sent the second notice of cancellation? A. I don't know that I consulted with anyone other than the directors of the Patents Company about that action. Q. I didn't ask you who you consulted with ; I ask who you spoke with about it? A. I mean that I spoke to them. Q. Who first asked you, if anybody, to again take up the question of the license of the Greater New York Film Kental Company? A. To take up the cancellation of the license, you mean? Q. Yes, I mean speaking now after the withdrawal? The Master : The second cancellation, we are talking about. The Witness: My impression is, that I was advised that the negotiations for the purchase of the property of the Greater New York had been broken off, and that then I myself raised with the other directors the question of the propriety of sending another notice of cancellation; and they all agreed that it should be sent.