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 #:
000209
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:
May 23, 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. 187 Q. And "During the period of organization of this respondent and prior to the organization of the General Film Company, the rental agencies had conducted their business in a manner utterly unsatisfactory not only to the manufacturers and importers of the films, but also to their own customers, the exhibitors, and theatre owners, that is to say: (a) rental exchanges were financially irresponsible. " Do you mean to say that these 116 odd rental exchanges were all financially irresponsible? A. No, I don't think all of them were financially irresponsible, but I think some of them were financially irresponsible. Q. You would modify that allegation of the answer and say that some rental exchanges were irresponsible? A. I think it would be more accurate to so modify it. Q. What per cent, of those 116 were irresponsible? A. I could not say that offhand. Q. In April, 1910, the nine licensed manufacturers organized the General Film Company, did they not? A. Yes. Q. That company thereupon engaged in the rental exchange business, did it not? A. Yes. Q. And thereafter it acquired the business of a large number of these 116 rental exchanges, it bought their property, their place of business and took on the business they were doing? A. I believe they bought the property from about fifty-seven of them. Q. And of the other exchanges going to make the 116 the Patents Company cancelled a large number, either under the 14 days clause which you have referred to, or under the clause permtting immediate cancellation for violation, is that correct? A. According to my recollection 30 of those original licenses had been cancelled prior to the organization of the General Film Company. Q. Out of the 116 rental exchanges, you say that the General Film Company bought 57? A. Yes, that is my recollection. Q. Of the others how many had their licenses cancelled by the Patents Company? A. Up to what time? Q. Well, up to, say, January 1, 1912, from December 18, 1908, to January 1, 1912?' A. I think forty-two of them had been cancelled up to that time. Some of them had voluntarily gone out of business before that time, and some of them had combined with others.