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 (1913)

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:
1913
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 2
Leaf #:
000514
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.

1132 J. M. Ensor, Direct Examination. same management and methods as characterized the Denver Film Exchange in its very successful dealings of several years. No revolutions or startling innovations of any kind will be attempted. The matter will simply be one of a business nature of renting goods and the schedule of prices which heretofore has been very satisfactory to customers will be maintained. There will be no new rules and no fresh restrictions. Trade will be handled on practically three points. The exhibitor must pay for his film service. He must take care of the reels. And return shipments by the first train after the show. The long established rules of the Motion Picture Patents Company of course will prevail and as these have been received with favor no objection will be found to them. The licensed customers of the Colorado Film Exchange will be received by the Denver branch of the General Film Company if application for service is made immediately. Under the rules if an exhibitor shows unlicensed film his application can only be granted after consideration by the Motion Picture Patents Company and in some cases we believe licenses will be refused. Application for service made immediately to this exchange will be received without the necessity of submitting it to the Patents Company other than the regular form of reporting new customers. This will remove any doubt regarding the securing of licensed service but it must be understood that such application must be made without delay. The matter of supplying film, of course, will be handled in a more liberal manner than before because of the enormous purchases by this exchange. The Denver branch of the General Film Company will not be run for individual profit as before but rather with the idea of increasing the business with better service and more liberal supply of new films. The standing orders of the exchange already amount to more than the combined purchases of the three individual exchanges and the manufacturers feel if it is necessary to double the number of new reels bought each week for this office there will be no hesitation whatever in supplying the demand. We extend the invitation to secure service from this exchange to exhibitors who are not now licensed but who wish to secure the highest grade film for the least amount of money and at the same time have the assistance of a