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 000207 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 #:
000207
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.

Harry N. Marvin, Direct Examination. 185 on page 3G, one hundred and twenty; which is correct? I am asking you because I want to have it as near the true figure as you can get it? A. I think perhaps, in my figure of 120, I had in mind the number of licensed exchanges, and in mentioning the number 150, I had in mind the total number of exchanges. Q. Then, 150 would be more nearly accurate as giving the number of all the exchanges in the United States in December, 1908? A. I think so, if you include infringing exchanges. Q. At page 47 of your answer mentioning the licenses you gave, you say that you gave them to all individuals and corporations then engaged in the business of distributing motion picture films, upon being satisfied that they were responsible, and were persons who could reasonably be expected to conduct the business on lines thai would not prove detrimental to the growth of the motion picture art. Who was it that determined or passed upon this question of the responsibility of the film exchange? A. The Directors of the Motion Picture Patents Company. Q. And you at that time issued licenses to those of the film exchanges whom you considered were the responsible persons and firms engaged in the film rental business? A. If they applied for this license. Q. Then the one hundred and sixteen licenses which you issued, I think that was the number shown on the exhibit yesterday — those 11G licenses were issued to those whom you considered responsible film rental exchanges? A. Well, they were issued to those whom we considered might be responsible film exchanges. We reserved the right of cancellation, so that if we should find that they were not responsible or desirable exchanges later on we could terminate the licenses. Q. You reserved the power to terminate the license or the contract on fourteen days' notice without cause, did you not? A. We did. Q. And to terminate it instantly for breach of any of the terms of the license? A. Yes. Q. And you considered such acts as the following violations of the license, namely: Distributing films to exhibitors that were not licensed? A. Yes. Q. Or handling films on the part of rental exchanges