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 #:
00034
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.

1200 H. N. Marvin, Direct Examination. Q. And this, I take it, embraced practically all of the good models on the market? A. Yes. Q. This was in 1909? A. Yes, at the time the licenses were first granted. Q. In referring to the clause in the license agreement between the Motion Picture Patents Company and the licensed producers of motion pictures, which provided how the producers of motion pictures might change the prices, you made some reference to the fact that the owners of the Patents Company were themselves producers. Just what did you mean by that? A. I meant by that that the stock of the Motion Picture Patents Company is owned by the Biograph Company and by the Edison Company. The Biograph Company and the Edison Company are producers of motion pictures. Q. And by that you mean that they were necessarily competitors of the other licensees? A. Necessarily competitors of the other licensees, yes. Q. And that this provision in the license agreement was in a sense a measure of protection to the other licensees, and which they insisted upon? A. Yes. I understand that that question originally referred to the matter of collection of royalties, which it was desired to keep secret on account of the desirability of keeping the business secrets of the licensees inviolate, and these licensees naturally objected to having the Edison Company and the Biograph Company acquainted with the magnitude of their business. Q. What did the license to producers of motion pictures contain, relative to the use of cameras and projecting machines? A. The license contained a provision that the licensee might make and use as many cameras as he desired for his own business under the patents that were owned by the Patents Company. He was not, however, restricted to the use of such cameras, and he was permitted to manufacture motion picture films, films of a certain width, for use in the United States, to be leased, and film of any width to be sold for export, and film of a narroAver width to be sold for use in the United States. Q. What price stipulation was made with respect to standing orders? A. It was provided that the standing order price should be somewhat less than the price for individual films which might be leased from time to time. This was a reasonable provision, and was put in because it was cheaper