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 #:
000617
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.

J. C. Graham, Direct Examination. 1235 By Mr. Grosvenor : Q. Please state what effect, if any, the cancellation of the licenses of these two exchanges and the simultaneous establishment of a branch of the Yale Film Exchange in St. Louis, licensed by the Patents Company under the socalled license, had upon the business of these two companies, the Western Film Exchange and the Crawford Film Exchange? A. The effect was to practically put us out of business as far as the handling of any further licensed films were concerned. Our customers began to leave us the next day after the cancellation, in accordance with the age of the film that we were required to serve them. The new exchange began receiving new reels of the various manufacturers of the Patents Company, and consequently were able to take on the top run business of the various theatres that our two exchanges had been serving, because we couldn't give them the film of the makes and ages required. This continued to a point where we had practically no customers left. The only customers we could serve were a few that could run through what film we had left. Q. In the film rental business is it necessary to have a constant, steady and uninterrupted supply of film in order to retain your customers, the exhibitors? A. Absolutely. Q. I show you a telegram dated July 20th, purporting to be addressed to Western Film Exchange, and purporting to be signed by Pathe Freres Company, and stating : "Please return immediately reels expressed you the coming Friday and Saturday. r Please state whether that is the date you received the telegram, July 20th? A. Yes, sir; it was received by us. Q. Was similar action taken in respect to stopping the supplying of films by the other manufacturers from whom you had previously been obtaining films? A. They each took action in their own way which resulted in our not receiving any more film. Mr. Grosvenor : I offer that in evidence. The paper referred to was marked by the Examiner "Petitioner's Exhibit No. 232," and is as follows :