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 #:
00061
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. 1287 very diverse service through negotiations with one office only, instead of dealing with a large number of producers. Furthermore, if the exhibitor had to go to a producer direct, to get his motion pictures, it would be necessary for the producer to keep on hand motion pictures of all ages of his own make, and each producer would then become a rental exchange, dealing in his own pictures only, and the exhibitor would have to deal with ten offices where he deals now with one. Since changes, in many cases, of programs, are made daily, it would scarcely be humanly possible to chase around to all these exchanges and collect films. Q. Was there any agreement, understanding or arrangement, between the General Film Company and the Patents Company, not to grant other exchange licenses? A. None whatever. Q. Does the Patents Company own any stock in the General Film Company? A. No. Q. What effect does age have upon the value of the motion picture service? A. Age is a controlling factor, generally speaking, in motion picture film service, not merely by reason of the wear and tear on the film and its deterioration through use, but because dramatic subjects very rapidly lose their value as they grow stale. The demand is for the newest, latest productions that are issued, so that motion picture dramas issued today may rent for $25 for the day's use, where tomorrow they may bring only $15, and the day following $10, and so on down, although the picture strip itself may be in perfect condition; in fact, although the particular strip that is rented may not have been used before. Its value may be compared somewhat to the value of news to a newspaper. Q. What was the purpose of the importing license given the General Film Company? A. The object of that was to enable the General Film Company to obtain now and then motion picture dramas of exceptional merit that might perhaps be produced in Europe, and might not be imported into this country by any licensed importer. As a matter of fact, however, that provision was found to be superfluous, and it was never exercised. The General Film Company never acted under that condition of their license, and at the expiration of the first term of that license, that provision was permitted to lapse and was not again incorporated. The license itself was permitted to lapse, and