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)

Page scan 00051 from 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 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 #:
00051
Language:
English
Collection:
Government & Law and Early Cinema
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 12, 2024
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.

Circulars to Film Rental Exchanges. >l\) Q. And it was upon those machines under this new arrangement that the license of two dollars per week was now imposed by the Patents Company? A. Yes. (2. Had your company sold any machines? A. No. Q. What other manufacturers of projecting machines were there in the United States at that time? A. Nicholas Power Company, Enterprise Optical Company and Eberhardt-Snyder ; I don't recall any others. Q. Had those companies sold machines outright, I refer to projecting machines? A. I believe they had. Q. And upon their machines, also, acquired by the exhibitors, this license fee was imposed? A. Yes, if they wanted a license. Q. Now, this paper marked "Defendants' Exhibit No. 7," states: "Established Exhibitors will be protected as much as possible by the Patents Company, which will carefully scrutinize each application for a license from any new exhibitor. No license will be granted for a new theatre in any district already well provided for." What officer of the Patents Company had in charge the consideration of the matters referred to in that paragraph which I just read? A. Principally myself. Mr. Grosvenor: I now offer in evidence the paper marked Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7. To the Film Rental Exchanges: The Motion Picture Patents Company has been incorporated for the purpose of taking over, and has acquired, the ownership of the Edison, Biograph, Armat, and Vitagraph patents, which, we are assured by counsel, cover all modern moving picture films and all existing commercial types of projecting machines. The Patents Company proposes to control the business in such a way that the honest and legitimate exchange, whether a member of the F. S. A., or not, shall be protected from the unfair and ruinous competition of the dishonest exchange. This can only be done by insisting that all exchanges who may desire protection under the above patents shall conform rigidly to