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 000240 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 #:
000240
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.

218 Harry N. Marvin, Direct Examination. Q. The Edison Company? A. Yes. Q. And the Biograph Company? A. Yes. Q. And the four directors of the Patents Company; are two of them connected with the Edison Company? A Yes. Q. And two of them with the Biograph Company. That is correct, isn't it? A. That is correct. Q. Now, isn't it also correct that under the agreements with the Patents Company's licensees, no manufacturer can get a license from the Patents Company without being voted upon b}* all the Patents Company's licensees, each having a vote on a basis of the amount of new reels issued, that is, one vote for each 1,000 feet? A. Yes, that is true as to a license for manufacturing motion picture films. Q. That is, no manufacturer can get a license from the Patents Company and be able to join this arrangement unless it has the vote of a majority of the Patents Company's licensees? A. What arrangement do you refer to? Q. Well, I mean become a manufacturer under the Patents Company patents, and then have its products distributed to the licensed theatres. Now, it cannot get those lights unless it has the affirmative vote of the majority of the Patents Company licensees? A. It cannot get a license to manufacture licensed film, but it can get a license to manufacture projecting machines, or a license to use exhibiting machines. Q. The commerce in the films is the considerable part of the commerce, isn't it? A. Yes. Q. Can anybody get a license from the Patents Com pany to engage in that business of commerce in films without receiving the affirmative vote of a majority of the Pa tents Company licensees? A. They can get a license to sublease films and to use them, but not to manufacture them. Q. Can anybody today get a license to manufacture and distribute films under the Patents Company licenses without receiving the affirmative vote of a majority of the Patents Company licensees? A. No. Q. Each of the Patents Company licensees has a representative as a Director upon the Board of the General Film Company? A. No. Q. Which does not? A. The Biograph Company.