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)

Page scan 00026 from 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 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 #:
00026
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 12, 2024
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.

1252 IT. N. Marvin, Direct Examination. whom ultimately all of the revenues must come. They realized that if the instrumentalities employed in the production of these motion picture dramas were imperfect, that the exhibitions would be imperfect, and that the public would not be favorably impressed with them, and that they would not be attracted to these shows, but rather possibly repelled. They felt, therefore, that it would be unsafe, so far as their owTn interests were concerned, and so far as the interests of the public were concerned, to have these film records of the drama go out into the hands of entirely irresponsible people throughout the country who might misuse them by exhibiting them after they became unfit for exhibition. It was felt, therefore, that the vehicles of these dramas must be conserved, and must be protected, and that the interest in the drama itself depended largely upon how the drama wTas produced, an inferior production, or representation of it, destroying the merit of the drama itself. Therefore, it was concluded that it would be necessary to lease those mediums through which the drama was to be exhibited and not to sell them, as that was the only way in which these exhibitions could be maintained in proper condition, but all of these motion picture strips that were used for public exhibitions of dramas were of an inch or more in width. It was not considered probable that the narrower film would be so used; it was expected that the use of the narrow film wrould be confined to private exhibitions in homes. Therefore, it was decided to lease only the wider film, while the narrowT film was permitted to be sold outright. It was realized that no matter what contracts might be entered into with anyone for the exhibition of these dramas, or what licenses might be granted, unless the ownership of these picture strips that contained drama records remained with the producer of the drama, there would be no effective way of carrying out any such contracts or licenses. The only way in which such contract, license, or agreement, could be made effective would be by retention of the ownership of the motion picture strip, which could be followed anywhere; whereas, if these strips were scattered around the country in the ownership of many irresponsible people, it would be an endless and impossible task to follow them up, and insure the carrying out of the agreements under which they might have been supplied.