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 #:
000468
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.

446 Louis Eosexbluh, Direct Examination. After a period of time, the early part of 1912, I should judge for about three mouths, the Biograph Company refused to deliver film to us, and the exhibitors had been in the habit of making the regular display of Biographs and had advertised same extensively in front of their places. This particular exhibitor, the Windsor Theatre, had been showing Biograph reels every Friday evening, that being the best day for his business, he being in a Hebrew section, for a number of years. He showed this Biograph film seven days after release. And he found that after waiting two or three weeks, and did not get any to exhibit, he wrote us a letter, unless we could assure him supplying Biographs within the near future, he would be compelled to make other arrangements, and as his information led him to believe that he could only get it from the General Film Company, he stated that he would have to go there to get his supply in the future. Mr. Caldwell: The question and answer is objected to on the ground it details conversations with a third party. By Mr. Grosvenor : Q. Who was the President of the Biograph Company at that time? A. Mr. J. J. Kennedy. Q. Is that the same Kennedy who is an officer of the General Film Company? A. Yes, sir. Q. And the same Kennedy with whom the transaction was had regarding the proposed sale of your Company to the General Film Company? A. Yes, sir. Q. And it was after your company had refused to sell to the General Film Company? A. Yes, sir. Q. I mean, this difficulty in getting Biograph film? A. Yes, sir. Q. And were there other complaints received by your rental exchange about this time, from other exhibitors? A. There was quite a number of complaints. Several received in written form, and a great many in conversation. Q. Because of your failure to supply Biograph films? A. Yes, sir. Q. Here is the letter dated July 13th, 1910, signed by the Motion Picture Patents Company, addressed to your company, relating to the Bohemian Hall, New York City. What