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 2
Leaf #:
00041
Language:
English
Collection:
Early Cinema and Government & Law
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:
June 13, 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 Fox, Direct Examination. 659 out a license from the Motion Picture Patents Company about January, 1909? A. Yes, sir. Q. Had you been doing business prior to January, 1908, with the different manufacturers of films and projecting machines? A. Yes, sir. Q. And when I say "you," of course, I refer to your Film Rental Company and not to your theatres? A. Yes, I understand. Q. And in buying these films from the different manufacturers prior to, or during the time, I mean, that is, prior to January, 1908, were the different manufacturers in competition? A. In keen competition with one another. Q. And as to prices and terms of sale? A. Yes. Q. Then prior to January, 1908, there had been this competition? A. There had been keen competition. Q. Now, in the year 1908, and about January or February of that year, this so-called association of Edison Licensees was formed? A. Yes, sir. Q. And which a number of the manufacturers joined? A. The majority of those who are in the Motion Picture Patents Company joined the association. Q. And who were the ones on the outside? A. The ones that remained on the outside were the Biograph Company and Kleine, of Chicago. Q. George Kleine? A. Yes. Q. And prior to and during the year 1908, up to the formation of the Patents Company, was there keen competition as to prices and terms of sale between these two factions, the Biograph faction and the Edison faction? A. I could answer that there was. Q. Sort of a warfare, was there not? Mr. Kingsley: I object to the question as calling for a conclusion of the witness. The Witness : There was. By Mr. Grosvenor: Q. Now, were you present at a meeting of the rental exchanges in January, 1909, which was held at the Hotel Imperial in New York City? A. I was; yes, sir. Q. Had you seen this so-called license agreement be