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 #:
00039
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. Marvin, Direct Examination. 1265 Q. Then one was not favored over another in regard to material phases of the agreement? A. No, there was no material favoritism. The only provision of that nature that I can recall was the provision that the Edison Company, the original owners of the film patent, should not pay royalty under the film patent. Q. With respect to the leasing provision embodied in the license to producers of motion pictures, how did it differ from a similar clause in the Edison license agreement? A. Well, it differed practically in form only. Under the Edison license agreement, while the term "sale" was used, I believe, in connection with the disposition of motion pictures, yet there was a provision that motion pictures should be returned after six months to the manufacturer, which provision operated to characterize the socalled sale as a virtual lease, since after a period, the purchaser of the motion picture must return it to the Edison Company, and, obviously, in the meantime, he could not re-sell it. Q. Were you familiar with the license agreement between the Motion Picture Patents Company and the rental exchanges, entered into in 1909? A. Yes. Q. Do you recall whether in the rental exchange license, there was any reference to the provision in the Edison license agreement relative to the return of motion picture films to the several licensed producers and importers? A. Yes. The rental agreement entered into by the Motion Picture Patents Company with the rental exchanges provided that the existing agreements between the rental exchanges and the Edison Company should be abrogated, with the exception of the provisions in those former agreements relative to the return of film to the manufacturers. It provided that that provision of the earlier agreements should not be abrogated by the license agreements then being made, but should be retained in force. Q. In other words, the Edison license agreement was abrogated, except as to any clause in said agreement relating to the return of motion picture film to the several licensed manufacturers or importers? A. That is right. Q. I think you have already testified that the license given to rental exchanges was a personal license. A. Well, it was, whether I testified or not.