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 #:
000246
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.

2G9G John P. Hbnnejgan, Direct Examination. exchange should rent at least twenty-five hundred dollars' worth of film per month? A. Yes, sir, I remember such a clause. Q. Did you object to that clause? A. No, not at all. Q. How many reels of film per week, or month, did you take at that time? A. We took some weeks almost enough to cover that amount. I feel pretty sure our purchases of film ran between a thousand and two thousand dollars per week. Q. Do you recall that in the license agreement of the Patents Company there was a provision for the return of motion pictures after they had been in use for six months? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you object to that provision? A. No, sir, not at all, I was glad of it. Q. Did you regard it as desirable or undesirable? A. I regarded it as quite an advantage. It was a good way of getting rid of junk. Q. Do you recall that in 1909 the Patents Company was collecting royalties from the exhibitors direct, and that subsequently the exchanges were required to collect or were permitted to collect the royalties from the exhibitors? A. Yes, sir. Q. When you took over the Lubin Film Exchange, was the Patents Company collecting direct from the exhibitors, or were the exchanges collecting from the exhibitors? A. I couldn't really answer that question, but to the best of my knowledge the exchanges were taking care of these license fees. Q. Was the Lubin Film Exchange Company making money when you bought it? A. No, sir, it was not. Oh, excuse me, I thought you said when we dropped it. Yes, it was making some money, I should judge, when we bought it, not a great deal, but some money. Q. Did the Magnetic Film Exchange under your management make any money? A. No, it was a case of going from bad to worse on account of fierce competition. The Pittsburgh Calcium Light Company and the Magnetic were the two exchanges in Cincinnati that handled the licensed film, and there was an awful struggle and battle for customers, and we would have a customer one week, and the Pittsburgh people would have it the next, and finally the conditions just got to be woeful. I don't believe that either exchange