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 #:
000167
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.

II. N. Marvin, Direct Examination. 1393 Defendants' Exhibit No. 78. Motion Picture Patent Co., N. Y. City. Gentlemen : We have three store front 5c theatres, two of us running high class service. The Theatre Film Service has undertaken to supply an outsider who has taken a lease on a spite theatre newly furnished, 800 seating capacity, which has proved a failure for Vaudeville, with Moving Picture Service, and are giving for 5c one reel 2nd run, one reel 2nd to 5th run and one reel 8 to 10th run, three reels daily change of practically new film, practically the entire output. Before they came we have been running two reels to a showT daily change one to two week old film for our first reel. Now, gentlemen, such competition is unfair. No money for us, and their' s is a game of freeze out. Now which is better for the manufacturers, to have three of us using copies, or only one using them, as we understand Mr. Skates of the Theatre Film Service holds stock of this Company that has butted in and none of us are able to get an Exchange who can spare film to equal the service, except at an exorbitant rental. It seems unfair, and we need protection. Cannot prices be so regulated that three new reels cannot be shown for 5c except under a penalty. Yours very truly, W. CLARKE. By Mr. Kingslby : Q. During the period that you were Vice-President of the Motion Picture Patents Company, did you keep in touch with the correspondence with exhibitors, rental exchanges, and licensees? A. I did. I read almost all of it. Q. And did you endeavor to keep posted regarding the course of business and the changes that wxere going on from week to wreek and month to month in the art? A. I did. Q. Do you recall all the letters which I have just offered in evidence? A. I do. Q. And you read them at the time they were received, did you not? A. I did.