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 #:
00071
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. 129' cense to a rental exchange without the consent of a majority of the licensees, although the Motion Picture Patents Company was not obligated to cancel any license, nor wTas it debarred from granting any license that it chose to grant — it was merely provided that the Patents Company must grant licenses on the demand of the licensees, and that the Motion Picture Patents Company would not cancel any license, without the consent of a majority of the licensees. The purpose of that provision was to protect the market of the licensees. By the terms of the license, the licensees might furnish motion pictures for subleasing only to licensed exchanges, but the licensees recognized the fact that the owners of the Patents Company, that is, the Biograph Company, and the Edison Company, were active competitors in the production of motion pictures of the other licensees. They had, up to that time, been the dominant factors in the art. They had been looked up to by the other licensees, as being the leaders in the motion picture art. They were known, each of them, to possess dominant patents in the art. It was apprehended that without some such provision, the Edison Company and the Biograph Company, might conspire together, and limit the number of licenses granted to rental exchanges, who would lease the majority of their supply of films from the Edison and Biograph Companies. Without that provision there would have been an opportunity for the Motion Picture Patents Company to have favored the Biograph Company, and the Edison Company, in that manner, and to have practically eliminated the entire market of the other licensees. Therefore, the licensees insisted that they be protected by that provision of the license agreement, which made it incumbent upon the Patents Company, to grant exchange licenses to any persons, firms, or corporations, designated by a majority of the licensees. In viewr, therefore, of that provision of the license agreement, whenever the Motion Picture Patents Company, through information, or observation, became satisfied that the question of the cancellation of the license of a rental exchange must be considered, the Motion Picture Patents Company presented to the licensees the facts, as they appeared to them in the matter, and asked for expressions of opinion on the part of the licensees, as to whether such license should be cancelled or