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 #:
00086
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.

2536 Petitioner's Exhibit No. 257. Mr. Kingsley : I also object to it on the ground that it is not binding on any of these defendants, the witness himself having stated that these defendants were not members of the Film Service Association. The article offered is received in evidence and is marked "Petitioner's Exhibit No. 257," and is as follows : Petitioner's Exhibit No. 257. IMPORTANT BULLETIN OF FILM ASSOCIATION. [The Show World Special News Service.] Secretary D. MaeDonald, of the Film Service Association, has issued the following bulletin: "The Executive Committee of the Film Service Association held a meeting in New York City on April 17 and 18, at which times replies to Bulletin No. 12, which asked for an expression of opinions by members of the Association on the minimum rental schedule, were taken up. Of 110 memberships, replies from which have been received, 90 had expressed themselves in favor of maintaining the schedule and 20 had asked that it be withdrawn. "Of the 20 who wished the schedule withdrawn, a number stated that they were in favor of the schedule if it could be enforced, and therefore had been a hardship on those members avIio were strictly living up to it. "The Committee investigated all of the complaints which had been sent in to the Secretary's office, and came to the conclusion that while in the majority of cases the schedule was being lived up to, there were many instances where members were cutting prices, permitting their films to be subrented, and in some cases their films were getting into the hands of Exchanges who were not members of our x\ssociation and were renting unlicensed films. The Committee, after careful consideration, was satisfied, that, while in some of these cases the action was deliberate, that there are many cases where members through carelessness or failure to properly supervise their business, were permitting their employes to break the contracts which the Exchanges have with the manufacturers.