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 #:
00055
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. 203. 2505 Bad Films Hurt Business. A show in which such films are used can only do harm to the business. Everyone having the vital interests of the business at heart must know that if the public is to be instructed and amused, it must be by the use of films of high quality, in good condition and of novel and ingenious subjects. Although everyone recognized this fact there seemed to be no remedy, and the conditions went on, pulling the business down to a lower plane from month to month. With the sustaining of the Edison camera patent and the strong probability that the Edison film patent would also be upheld by the courts, the important and responsible manufacturers in the country were wise enough to see that those patents would have to be acknowledged, and consequently applications for licenses were made to us. It was then recognized that by properly limiting the conditions of these licenses the evils that have invaded the business could in a large measure be overcome, and the business be eventually placed on a high and legitimate plane. Licenses Issued to Film Firms. Licenses have therefore been granted to the following concerns, which, with the Edison Manufacturing Company, are alone authorized to manufacture or sell non-infringing films in this country: Essanay Company. Kalem Company. S. Lubin. G. Melies. Pathe Freres. Selig Polyscope Company. Vita graph Company of America. Under the licenses which have so far been granted, involving the payment of royalties for the use of the patents, we have required that certain conditions shall be strictly observed, the most important of which, to the exhibitor, are the following: (1) Licensed motion pictures are sold only to licensed exchanges, who shall agree in writing with the several