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 #:
000206
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.

2656 Leland B. Kent, Direct Examination. Q. What was the name of it? A. Kent Film Service Company. Q. Did you manage it yourself? A. Yes, sir. Q. How long did you manage the Kent Film Service Company in Toledo? A. About four years. Q. What did you do with it ? A. When I got through with it? Q. Yes? A. Sold it. Q. And to whom did you sell it? A. The General Film Company. Q. Have you been in the moving picture business since you sold the Kent Film Exchange to the General Film Company? A. No, sir. Q. Did you take a license from the Motion Picture Patents Company in 1909? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you have any objection to taking this license? A. No, sir. Q. Did you enter into it voluntarily? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did anyone tell you at the time you signed the license agreement of the Motion Picture Patents Company that any of its terms would not be enforced? A. No, sir. Q. Did anyone tell you at that time that the provisions of the license agreement, relative to cancelling the license upon fourteen days' notice, would not be enforced? A. No, sir. Q. Did you have any experience while operating a rental exchange with subrenting? A. While running a licensed exchange? Q. While running your exchange? A. No, sir. Q. Do you recall that in the license agreement which you signed with the Motion Picture Patents Company, there was a requirement for leasing at least twenty-five hundred dollars' worth of motion pictures per month? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you object to that provision? A. No, sir. Q. At that time how much lilm were you leasing? A. Well, about $1,400.00 a week, I think. Q. Did you require that much film in order to serve your customers? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you favor, or disapprove, the provision in the license agreement calling for the return of film after it had been used for six months? A. I favored it.