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 000262 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 #:
000262
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.

240 Harry N. Marvin, Direct Examination. branch managers know what is going on, and more or less important questions are coming up constantly, and apparent indifference or neglect on my part is having a demoralizing effect. Among other matters, several leases of our branches are expiring and the question of renewals is being forced upon me." Now, you understood that his reference to "bringing matters to a focus" referred to the delay in consummating the arrangement with the Patents Company. Mr. Caldwell: That question is objected to as leading. Let the counsel ask the witness what he did understand by it. A. I understand that he referred to the delay in securing a license under the Edison patents. Q. By whom? A. I do not understand that question. Q. You say he referred to the delay in obtaining a license under the Edison patents? A. The delay in his obtaining a license under the Edison patents. He hoped if the organization was effected, that he would obtain a license under the Edison patents, and if he did obtain a license under the Edison patents, he did not care to extend his rental business. Q. Who is the Percy Waters referred to in this letter? A. That was Percy Waters of the Kinetograph Company, which was a film rental exchange. Q. He is now a Director in the General Film Company? A. He is not. He never served as a Director in the General Film Company. He was elected, but he resigned without serving. Q. Mr. Kleine also states: "My import orders have been seriously influenced, as we are having a continuous shortage because I do not want to have a big stock come in after an arrangement is made." Under the license agreement entered into with Kleine, he was barred from importing films of any manufacturers except the Urban-Eclipse and the Gaumont. Is that not correct? A. Yes. Q. And at the time he wrote this letter, he was importing films of other manufacturers? A. Yes.