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 #:
000241
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. 219 Q. Each of the others has, does it not? A. I believe it has. Q.The Biograph Company had a representative until May, 1912? A. Yes. Q. Then nine of the Directors of the General Film Company are representatives of the Patents Company licensees? A. Yes. Q. Is it not a fact that all the common stock of the General Film Company is distributed to the Patents Company licensees, or to officers of the Patents Company licensees? A. I think so. As I said before, I have no positive knowledge of that. Q. And you understand that only the common stock has voting power? A. I so understand it. Q. In spite of those facts do you still maintain that it cannot be said that the control of the General Film Company rests with the Patents Company? A. I do not see according to those facts how the Patents Company has any control whatever over the General Film Company. Q. You maintain they are separate and distinct? A. Absolutely. Q. Do you think that the fact that the manufacturers were engaging, through the General Film Company, in this rental exchange business, had any influence upon them, or induced them to reach this attitude, that all the rental exchanges were irresponsible, and that all of these conditions described in your answer were damaging the business? A. Why, no. Because those conditions existed prior to the organization of the General Film Company, and were the reasons which inspired the organization of that company. Q. You think then, that the Patents Company and the General Film Company were acting impartially in cancelling the licenses, and in buying up these exchanges? A. Absolutely. Because it could be of no possible service to the General Film Company, for the Motion Picture Patents Company to cancel the licenses of an exchange, and it could be of no possible interest to the Motion Picture Patents Company that the General Film Company should buy the property of an exchange. Q. To-day, as you have testified, not one of those exchanges is doing business, in other words, your attitude, or your opinion in regard to these rental exchanges is