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 #:
00064
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.

1290 H. N. Marvin, Direct Examination. ment, either written or verbal, specific or implied, that the Motion Picture Patents Company was unlawfully to formulate license agreements by which the defendants herein were to control, restrain, and monopolize all branches of commerce among the States of the United States and with foreign countries, relating to the motion picture art? A. No. Q. When the various corporations first entered into the license agreements of December 18th, 1909, were they actuated by an unlawful purpose to restrain, control and monopolize the motion picture art? A. They were not. Q. Were any of the corporations with which you were connected at that time actuated by the purpose unlawfully to control, restrain and monopolize the motion picture art and exclude others therefrom? A. No. Q. Was the license agreement with respect to the manufacture of projecting machines entered into with the purpose and intention of unlawfully monopolizing, restraining, and controlling a part or a whole of the motion picture art? A. N!o. Q. Was the General Film Company organized for the purpose of monopolizing and controlling the business of rental agencies throughout the United States? A. No. Q. Do you recall that there has been a statement in this case to the effect that $100,000,000 has been invested in the motion picture art? A. I believe some such statement as that was made in the answer of the defendants. Q. That includes what? A. Well, that estimate would necessarily include the valuation of the property, theatre property, real estate, and so on, devoted to the exhibition of motion picture dramas throughout the country, as well as to the producing plants of the producers of motion pictures. The supply of motion picture drama records, and all of the other appliances, projecting machines, and so forth, used in the exercise of this art. Q. Has the Motion Picture Patents Company any interest in or investment in theatres? A. None whatever. Q. Did the Biograph and Armat companies manufacture or sell projecting machines prior to 1908? A. No. I might qualify that by saying that prior to that time the Biograph Company made for its own use a very limited number, I should say twenty or twenty-five, projecting machines, not