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 000239 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 #:
000239
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. 217 tion, and before it was formed, the organizers had prepared an estimate of the value of the businesses, of the aggregate value of the businesses of the different licensed exchanges then doing business. Is that not correct? A. Some estimates had been made of the probable value of the existing supply of film with a view to determining the amount of capital that might probably ultimately be required, if the General Film Company did meet with such a support on the part of the exhibitors as would warrant the extension of its business throughout the country. It could not reasonably incorporate and start its business without looking ahead to see what might ultimately be required in the way of capital to extend the business. Q. Now, take page 70 of the answer. You speak, as an illustration of the growth of the theatres1 business, as an illustration of the solidity of the business, of a $500,000 motion picture theatre that is being completed in New York. Where is that theatre? A. On the corner of 116th Street and Seventh Avenue. Q. Who owns that theatre? A. It is owned by the Seventh Avenue Theatre Company. The St. Nicholas & Seventh Avenue Theatre Company. Q. Who owns the stock in that company? A. A part of the stock, a majority of the stock, is owned by Mr. J. J. Little and his associates. Q. And who are his associates? A. I don't know. I think his son is one. I do not know what others. Q. Are any of the licensed manufacturers interested in that theatre? A. Not to my knowledge. I can say definitely they are not. Q. How about the theatre in Denver, Colorado. What is the name of that theatre? A. I don't know what theatre you refer to. Q. I am referring to the one stated in your answer to be |150,000 theatre in Denver, Colorado. What is that theatre? A. I do not know the name of that theatre. Q. You do not know who is interested in it? A. No. Q. In your answer you state, at page 01 : "It cannot be said, and is denied that the control of the business of the General Film Company rests in this respondent,'' the respondent being the Motion Picture Patents Company. Who controls the Motion Picture Patents Company? There are two stockholders, are there not? A. There are.