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 #:
000207
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.

Leland B. Kent, Direct Examination. 2657 Q. You favored the provision? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you believe it a desirable thing for the business that the film should be returned after it had been for six months in active use? A. Yes, sir. Q. When you began to return film to the various licensed producers of motion pictures under the exchange license agreement, what film did you return, that is, what kind of film? A. Worn out film. Q. Did you have a considerable supply on hand at the time you executed the license agreement with the Motion Picture Patents Company? A. I had what I would call a considerable amount. Q. How much would that be? A. It was the purchases of ten to fourteen reels a week for the past two or three years, that is, worn out, and not worn out. Q. Do you recall that at the beginning of the license arrangement that the Patents Company collected the royalties directly from the exhibitors? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you have any confusion or difficulty in the management of your business because of that fact? A. I never knew when my exhibitor had paid. Q. Did you find that the situation was improved in this respect when the collections were made direct through the rental exchanges? A. Yes. Q. Did you favor that change? A. Yes, sir. Q. Who conducted the negotiations on behalf of your exchange for the sale of its stock and property to the General 'Film Company? A. I did. Q. With whom did you transact the business of selling your exchange to the General Film Company? A. You mean who did I first write to? Q. Well, with whom did you have the negotiations which led up to the sale of your film exchange to the General Film Company? A. My first letter was addressed to the General Film Company, and my second letter to Mr. Kennedy. Q. Mr. J. J. Kennedy? A. Yes, sir. Q. Were you making any money in the business at that time? A. Well, some. Q. Had you been making some money for some time at it? A. Well, not a great amount of money. Q. Would you call it a profitable or just an average business? A. Just an average business.