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 #:
000237
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. Miarvin, Direct Examination. 215 Q. Now, from how many of those theatres are you able to state, did you receive complaints? A. I cannot say offhand how many, but it was a very large number. Q. The next paragraph : "Rental exchanges would resort to grossly unfair practices to other rental exchanges." Now, what do you base that statement upon? A. Upon reports from exhibitors, and reports from rental exchanges. Q. Well, this refers to exchanges' troubles with exchanges. It says, "rental exchanges would resort to grossly unfair practices with other rental exchanges." Then, as a means of improving the business, you wiped out all the rental exchanges, is that right? A. No, we did not wipe out but very few of a large number. Q. How many of those 11G rental exchanges whom you licensed in 1909, are today distributing the films of those nine licensed manufacturers? A. None of the rental exchanges that were — with one exception — that were licensed at that time, are iioav engaged in distributing films to exhibitors, but not because they were wiped out or their licenses cancelled, by the Motion Picture Patents Company. Many of them went out of business voluntarily. The one exception to which I refer is the Greater New York Film Rental Exchange, which, while not licensed by the Motion Picture Patents Company, has been permitted to handle licensed films. Q. And it secured that permission by virtue of suit, hasn't it? A. I would not say by virtue of suit. No. Q. Now, Mr. Marvin, speaking frankly, wasn't it the intent of the organizers of the General Film Company, when they formed the company, to get all this rental exchange business which was being done by these licensed exchanges? A. No ; I cannot say that it was. The manufacturers who organized the General Film Company, were almost without exception, extremely reluctant to organize the General Film Company, or to have anything to do with the film rental business. They considered that it was a very serious question which might affect seriously their market for film. They were urged to take some steps to improve the rental conditions that were then existing. It was not easy to persuade them of the desirability of doing anything along that line. Finally, after months of solicitation and urging, they were prevailed upon — Q. (Interrupting) : By whom? A. Principally by myself. They were prevailed upon to start an experimental film rental exchange, to be run along lines that were as nearly