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 #:
000465
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.

Louis Rosenbluh, Direct Examination. 443 Of the 20 who wished the schedule withdrawn, a number stated that they were in favor of the schedule if it could be enforced, but complained that the schedule had not in all cases been enforced, and therefore had been a hardship on those members who were strictly living up to it. The Committee investigated all of the complaints which had been sent in to the Secretary's office and came to the conclusion that while in the majority of cases the schedule was being lived up to, there were many instances where members were cutting prices, permitting their films to be sub-rented, and in some cases their films were getting into the hands of Exchanges who were not members of our Association and were renting unlicensed films. The Committee, after careful consideration, was satisfied that, while in some of these cases the action was deliberate, that there were many cases where members through carelessness or failure to properly supervise their business were permitting their employees to break the contracts which the Exchanges have with the manufacturers. EDISON COMPANY TO ENFORCE CONTRACTS. The Edison Manufacturing Company, the owners of the patents under which the members of our Association are licensed, assumes the entire responsibility for enforcing the contracts between licensed manufacturers and our members under which we received licensed film. The Committee conferred with the Edison representatives and received every assurance that this Company would co-operate with the Committee in seeing that contracts between the Exchanges and the Manufacturers were uniformly enforced so Hint no exchange would have an advantage over another. Tt was agreed that any evidence which was submitted to the Secretary of the Association should be referred to the Edison Company for action, and that every complaint made should be thoroughly investigated, for which purpose the necessary staff should be retained. For the present the efforts of the Executive Committee and the Edison Manufacturing Company will be devoted to investigating complaints ami taking action in regard to any cases which will uphold the following propositions