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 #:
000238
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.

216 Harry N. Marvin, Direct Examination. ideal as could be devised, and in the interests of the exhibitors. That exchange was started as an experiment, with the hope that it would be successful, and with the idea that if it was successful and was welcomed and approved by the exhibitors, that its field would be extended, so far as there should be a demand for it on the part of the exhibitors, and with the understanding that if it did not prove to be successful, and it did not meet with the confidence of the exhibitors, and the support of the exhibitors, that it would not be extended, and would not cause any commotion or disturbance in the existing market for film. Q. Now, was your purpose entirely altruistic or was not the fact that you were to get — that is, by "you" I mean the licensed manufacturers — were to get the profits through the ownership of stock in the General Film Company, that is to say, the profits theretofore made by the rental exchanges, was not that fact one of the reasons which induced you to found the General Film Company, and to endeavor to expand its business? A. That was not one of the reasons that induced the manufacturers to organize the General Film Company. It is an absolute fact that the great majority, if not all of the manufacturers, believed that there would be no profit made by the General Film Company. They apprehended a loss of market in leasing their film. In order to compensate them for that possible loss of market, they considered that any profits that there were made, would, to a measure, offset their possible loss as to manufacture. The dominating influence that persuaded them to organize the General Film Company was to protect the exhibitors of the country, and to elevate the business, and thereby strengthen and secure their positions as manufacturers of motion pictures. They did not engage in the General Film Company or go into the film rental business for the purpose of making money, and they did not believe that they would make money. Q. As a matter of fact, the General Film Company has been very profitable, has it not? A. The General Film Company has made some profit, but many manufacturers, or some of the manufacturers, have held that the owners of the General Film Company have lost money through the organization of the General Film Company, owing to a reduction in the sales of film and the increase of cost of productions necessitated by improving the service to exhibitors. Q. Before the General Film Company commenced opera