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 #:
00057
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. 1283 the discussion which followed the arrival of that committee? A. Well, I participated in that discussion. I don't remember very distinctly the details of it, but the burden of it was that this committee objected to some of the conditions of the exchange license agreement as submitted to them, and tried to induce modifications of some of these provisions, but it was not decided to modify the license agreement in accordance with their wishes. Q. Were you an officer of the Patents Company at that time? A. Yes, I was Vice-President at that time. Q. And who was President? A. Mr. Dyer. Q. On the occasion of this committee's coming to the office of the Patents Company, did you hear Mr. Dyer state to any member of the committee or to the committee generally, that the fourteen-day clause of the rental exchange license agreement would not be enforced? A. I did not. Q. Was any such statement made in your hearing by anyone? A. No such statement was made in my hearing by anyone. Q. At the time the Motion Picture Patents Company licensed the producers of motion pictures, did the company license practically all of the producers in the United States? A. Yes. The Patents Company licensed all of the producers of motion picture dramas, who were at that time producing anything to speak of. Q. What was the purpose, Mr. Marvin, in keeping the title of motion pictures in the producers? A. Well, these motion picture strips or records were records of dramas produced by these licensed producers. Now, the entire reputation of these producers among the public, and ultimately the popularity of their subjects, and their revenues from them, depended not merely upon the original merit of the dramatic production as photographed, but also to a very large degree upon the perfection of the representation, and the popularity of the art as a whole depended upon the general excellence of these motion picture exhibitions. Now, these motion picture films are fragile affairs, not durable, and when they became worn, scratched and mutilated, they were incapable of giving satisfactory presentation of the dramas. One of the most serious defects to which the motion picture film record is subject is mutilation by loss of some portions of it. It frequently happens