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 00044 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 #:
00044
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.

662 William Fox, Direct Examination. on the agreement for the exhibitors as Secretary of the Film Service Association, when the Edison agreement was given to us, one of the important reasons, or one of the urgent things, that you persuaded us and showed us why we should accept that particular agreement as our Secretary was on account of the fact that it did not chauge the relationship of doing business in any shape, manner or form, that we were purchasing films at the same prices, and, in fact, for less money, under the agreement than without the agreement." By Mr. Grosvenor: Q. You mean the Edison agreement? A. Yes, sir. Q. Of 1908? A. Yes, sir. And I said, "You showed us or told us that we would have all kinds of advantages in buying under the Edison agreement, and to-day you are here representing the manufacturers with an agreement that is absolutely different from the original Edison agreement, which is now taking away the right of the ownership of the film, and that is compelling us to do business under certain conditions, and you are putting rules and regulations on us that are going to be the hardest in the world to live up to, and before I will consent for my company to sign that agreement you will have to tell me for what length of time the agreement is for, as the date is in blank, giving you the arbitrary right of cancellation, and does not state for what period you are supplying this motion picture film." Q. You refer now to what is known as the "14-day clause'' in the agreement? A. Yes, sir. Q. You may state whether or not after this discussion at the meeting, a committee from the rental exchanges was appointed to interview the manufacturers. A. During the course of that meeting and a few minutes later there was a committee appointed to wait on the manufacturers, and to find out from them for what period the license agreement was intended for, in view of the fact that it did not specify a specific date. Q. Do you recall who was appointed to that committee, any of the names? A. If I had a list of the names — I mean of who were members of that organization at the time, I could pick them out, probably.