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 000242 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 #:
000242
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.

220 Harry N. Marvin, Direct Examination. that only the General Film Company had any beneficent intentions. A. I do not think any rental exchange other than the General Film Company had an beneficent intention, and I do not think any rental company other than the General Film Company, ever concerned itself at all about the interests of the exhibitors of the country, or the permanence of the business, nor the uplifting of the business. I think they concerned themselves only in getting as much money quickly out of the business as they possibly could, without regard to the general public, the exhibitors, or the permanence of the enterprise. Q. You think it is much better that all the money should come to the General Film Company as the Patents Company licensee? A. Much better than what? Q. Much better than that it should be distributed to the rental exchange companies under the former method of doing business? A. I think it is much better for the exhibitors of the country to pay money for their film service to a rental exchange that is interested in helping their business as exhibitors, and who have an interest in maintaining the decency of the business, and its permanence, owing to the interests that these Directors had as manufacturers, with large investments, in uplifting the entire molion picture business. Q. And you think that not one of those rental exchanges had any desire to improve the business conditions? A. I never knew of one having any such desire. Q. You think your attitude is a fair one, and uninfluenced by the consideration that the profits of these rental exchanges were to go to the General Film Company, and then come and be distributed among the Parents Company licensees. You think that your attitude is fair, and unbiased by that consideration? A. Absolutely. Because it is an open question to-day whether the manufacturers have profited through the organization of the General Film Company. Since the organization of the General Film Company, they have enormously increased the expense of their productions, so as to provide motion picture films of a very much higher order than were formerly obtainable. They have very largely multiplied the n umber of releases. I think they have doubled the number of subjects that they are putting out each week. That