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 #:
00027
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.

H. N. Mlvkvix, Direct Examination. 1253 Q. Why was the license made personal to the licensee? A. As I stated in my answer to the previous question, the owners of the patents regarded their revenues as dependent upon the manner in which this dramatic art was exercised throughout the country; they realized that it was a new thing; that it was on trial before the public. They realized that in the matter of amusement and entertainment the public is tickle. They realized, therefore, that imperfect and inferior representations of the art would estrange the public, whereas fine, high-class exhibitions would attract the public, would win them, would attract them into the theatres, and cause them to pay large sums of money for their entertainment, a portion of which would find its way eventually to the owners of the patents. They, therefore, regarded it of supreme importance that the people who were licensed under these patents to promote this art should be selected with the greatest care ; that they should, wherever possible, be men of experience, men who had demonstrated by their past work their ability and their intention to produce motion picture dramas of the attractive sort, and of a high character. Therefore, great care was exercised in selecting these licensees, but all of that care would have been fruitless, and the entire scheme would have been defeated, if these licenses had been transferable at the will of the licensees, because, voluntarily or involuntarily, as time went on, these licenses might have been assigned from one person to another, and thus the whole purpose of the original selection might have been wiped out. Q. Why was it stipulated that all pictures made by the licensees must be on film selected and designated by the Patents Company? A. At that time there were several sources of supply of the raw stock on which motion picture photographs were printed, but one of these sources of supply was very considerably superior to the others. And it was noted that motion pictures photographed on motion picture film supplied from this particular source were much better, were more durable, and the photographic qualities were better; therefore, the dramatic representations were superior. And, car lying out its policy of seeking to advance its interests by advancing the quality of the art, the owners of the patents thought it wist1 to insist that the motion pictures used in the presentation of these dramas should he made from the best obtainable stock, and therefore they in