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 #:
000697
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.

GENERAL INDEX. CV11 Vitagraph Co. of America, Continued: vol. page License Agreement under the Projecting Machine Patents, between Patents Co. and Vitagraph Co., dated Jan. 7, 1909; similar to Exhibit 5 to Petition I 244 Agreement between Vitagraph Company of America and General Film Co., dated April 21, 1910; similar to Exhibit 8 on page 116 of Petition I 552 Supplemental License Agreement, Patents Co. and Vitagraph Co., dated on or about Jan. 26, 1909 ; similar to Defendants' Exhibit 49 Ill 1329 License Agreement between Patents Co. and Vitagraph Co., dated June 6, 1912; similar to Exhibit 3 to Answer of Patents Co. ; Defendants' Exhibit 47 Ill 1309 License Agreement, dated June 20, 1913, between Patents Co. and Vitagraph Co. ; similar to Defendants' Exhibit 48 Ill 1310 Report of Special Master in the Matter of Imperial Film Exchange, an alleged bankrupt, June 20, 1910; Petitioner's Exhibit 157 II 841 Order of Districl Judge Hough in the Matter of Imperial Film Exchange, alleged bankrupt, confirming the above report and dismissing the petition of Vitagraph Company and others to have said Exchange ailjudged an involuntary bankrupt, dated June 28, 1910;' Petitioner's Exhibit 158 II 853