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 (1914)

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:
1914
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 5
Leaf #:
00035
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.

Petitioner's Exhibit No. 253. 2485 chase film only from the association of manufacturers and importers. "2. No duplicating of film. "3. The elimination of sub-renting. (A sub-renter was defined as one who, for the purpose of profit, secures film from a renter and re-rents it.) "4. No film to be sold second-hand. "5. Retiring of film purchased after it has been rented for a period to be decided; the reurning of this used film to the manufacturers. " RESUME OF PROCEEDINGS. Saturday morning the various renting concerns began to file into the hotel and introduce themselves. This naturally took some time but was well spent. At 11.30 the first meeing was called to order, when W. H. Swanson, of Chicago, and D. MacDonald, New York, were appointed, respectively, president and secretary pro tern. The first business was the collating of a roll call of all x^resent, their firms and standing. Mr. Swanson then welcomed the various delegates, gave an able and lucid address on the trials and difficulties, the good and evil points in the renting business, expressing the hope that the conference would be able to arrive at some definite policy, whereby the good could be improved and the evil eliminated. The ideas he expressed seemed to voice the sentiments of all, and after outlining the objects of the conference he made a suggestion that a committee on credentials be appointed, which was immediately acted upon. This committee at once set to work and reported favorably on the propriety of the conference. Following this a committee consisting of Messrs. Swanson, MacDonald, Peckham, Miles and Clarke were appointed to interview the manufacturers, the meeting adjourning to await the report of the committee, who at once proceeded to interview the manufacturers meeting in another room. Roth sides expressed their opinions, fully reviewing the pros and cons of the situation, and a plan was adopted whereby both manufacturers and renters could in future work in harmony with mutual benefit to both. The manufacturers expressed themselves as being in full accord with