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 00035 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 2
Leaf #:
00035
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.

William H. Swanson, Cross Examination. 653 Q. Eastman? A. For one, yes, sir. Lumiere, for an 1 other. Agful Company, for another. Q. As I understand you, these individual five parties that went into the Universal Film Company, would buy the raw — ■ A. (Interrupting) : Film stock. Q. (Continuing) : Film stock, and have their own studios, and photograph their own pictures, and then reprint, if you please, from that? A. They would develop and reprint in their own laboratories. Q. In their own laboratories? A. Correct, in their own laboratories, yes, sir. Q. Did the Independent Company have a large patron ^ age? A large number of exchanges? A. They had no exchanges. Q. Just exhibited here in New York, did they? A. They did not exhibit at all. Q. Did not they manufacture reels and sell them to exchanges? A. Yes, sir. Q. How many reels a week would they manufacture? A. Would who manufacture? Q. We will take the Independent Company. Mr. Grosvexor : At what date? 3 Mr. Willis: In the time just prior to the consolidation. The Witness: They would sell about three reels a week. Would sell about 90 reels. By Mr. Willis: Q. A week? A. Yes, sir. Q. How about the Powers Picture Play Company? A. The reason I can give you a definite answer on the Imp or 4 the Independent, as you term it, we called it the "Imp," in the business, is that it is one of the best sellers we had, and was noticeable for that fact, and the Powers is one of the poorest made subjects, and their sale was not very great, and for that reason, no one paid any attention — not enough attention to know how many were being sold. Q. You don't know how many they released? A. No. Not very many. Q. How about the Rex Company. You had been con