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 (1913)

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:
1913
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 1
Leaf #:
00047
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.

Harry N. Marvin, Direct Examination. 25 Q. That three per cent, had relation to the film that was to be used for scientific purposes? A. Yes. Q. Then was the Eastman Company allowed to sell sensitized film of the standard width, to manufacturers in this country other than the Patents Company licensees and those foreigners you have named or that you have referred to? A. Only to the extent of this minimum amount that I mentioned. Q. They could not other than that? A. Not other than that. Q. And that was only to certain customers of theirs and those who were to use the film for scientific purposes? A. Yes. Q. But they were not allowed to sell it to manufacturers who were making motion pictures for exhibition purposes? A. Except as they came over from Europe, their former customers. Q. Unless they were former customers the Eastman Company was debarred from selling to manufacturers the film of standard width for the manufacture of motion pictures? A. Yes, under those conditions. Q. Now, was there any other manufacturer in the United States at that time manufacturing suitable film for the use of motion pictures? A. I don't know of any that was making suitable film at that time. Mr. Willis : I desire to enter an objection to the parts of the examination of the witness with refer ence to the Eastman Kodak Company agreement, as immaterial, and for other reasons to be hereafter stated. Mr. Grosvenor: Counsel for the defendants have produced at the request of the Government certain circulars issued by Motion Picture Patents Company to Film Rental Exchanges, and also circulars to exhibitors; I introduce the following papers or parts thereof as stated in evidence. Circulars to Filin Rental Exchanges. Q. Will you please read that paper which I hand you, Mr. Marvin? A. I have.