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 #:
000243
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. 221 leaves a reduction in the number of copies leased from each production. That means a very great reduction in the profits of the manufacturer. They have been inspired to do that because of the demand of the public for better motion picture exhibitions, and with the hope that it would so encourage the public who attend motion picture theatres throughout the country, that the entire business would grow to a very much larger extent than would be possible with the kind of motion pictures that were being distributed before. Q. You believe in a control, a single control of this business? My question may not be clear, so I will read from your answer, at page 44 : aTo perfect the business of this art, the control must be single and systematic. If single, it must be lawful. If single, the instrumentality of corporations would be the most useful to systematically perfect the business, and to extend the exclusive use under the patent dominion to its ultimate, lawful and efficient limits. The motion picture business is not a technically public service employment. But that the business needed fair and effective regulation by some kind of single and efficient control, will appear hereinafter. The petitioner could not regulate it. The States would not. This respondent has been attempting to regulate it fairly and conscientiously towards all lawfully engaged in the art, until the petitioner began this suit 'to experiment on its case' against the defendants as hereinafter set forth." That represents your views? A. It does. Q. Where is that quotation from, "to experiment on its case?" A. I do not know where that is from. Q. This whole arrangement, the creation of the Patents Company, the drafting of all these licenses — I refer now to manufacturers' licenses under No. 12,192 and No. 12,037, and the licenses to the projecting machine manufacturers, and the licenses to the exhibitors, and the formation of the General Film Company, and the licenses granted to it by the Patents Company — all this arrangement was devised for the purpose of securing this control which you refer to in this paragraph of your answer which I have read. Is that right? A. No. I would not say that all of those things were devised — Q. (Interrupting.) Well, in part, the creation of the