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 3
Leaf #:
00021
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.

II. N. Marvin, Direct Examination. 1-47 style, owing to very considerable fluctuations in the supply. There was a tremendous amount of litigation — almost everyone who was permanently engaged in the occupation of producing motion pictures, and some who were importing, were being sued under various patents that were owned by different owners, which patents covered different elements in the apparatus employed in the production and exhibition of motion pictures. This continual fighting in the Courts, with the uncertainties attending it, acted to deter producers from increasing and regulating their output. It kept the renters or distributors of motion pictures in a continual uncertainty, because they were unable to tell from day to day what their sources of supply would be. It deterred exhibitors from increasing their investments in theatres, and it deterred others from going into the business of operating theatres, because of the uncertainties attendant upon the sources of supply of motion pictures. The owners of the several patents were repeatedly warning the public that their patents were about to be sustained, and that they were about to prevent some persons from continuing in the occupation, and the general result was rather chaotic, and the conditions were very discouraging to the advancement of the art. By Mr. Kingsley: Q. Were you at that time connected with the Biograph Company? A. I was. Q. In what capacity were you connected with that company? A. I was Vice-President. Q. Were you familiar with the business of the Biograph Company? A. Yes, I was. Q. At that time did you, as a producer of motion pictures, consider it safe to make large investments under the conditions then existing? A. I did not. Mr. Grosvenor: It is understood that my objection, made at the beginning of this line of questioning, applies to all questions along this line, so that I will not have to repeat it, on the ground that it is going into the economic conditions, and not anything that is directly material to any of the issues in this case.