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 #:
00047
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. 665 up to the terms of the agreement." I said, "Now, let me understand what you mean by living up to the terms of the agreement?'' I said, "You know, MacDonald, that in the meeting room I made it very clear and distinct that the thing was drawn in a technical way and that there were a thousand different petty excuses you could manufacture by which you could justify your cancellation of this license, and in that way put us out of business." And he said, "Why, Fox, we do not intend to do anything that is going to be technical at all; there are only two of the provisions that we are going to enforce, and they are, one, that you pay for the film you lease from us, and the other, that you do not rent this film to anyone who does not receive a license from the Motion Picture Patents Company. In other words, we want to control the exhibitor and we want to control the film renter," and on that assurance I advised my company to sign that license agreement. Q. Were there any other adequate sources of supply of film outside of the manufacturers who had taken out licenses with the Patents Company? A. In my opinion there was not enough of it, and what there was of it was bad, and a man would simply ruin his business to try and exhibit it. Q. Then afterwards, that is, in the years 1909 and 1910, and down to the present time, you were doing business as a licensed rental exchange? A. Yes, sir. Q. WTere there in the year 1909 other licensed rental exchanges doing business in New York City? A. I think there were eight or nine of them that had licenses. Can I see that list again? That will give us the exact number. Q. Well, that is, approximately? A. Yes. , Q. When did the General Film Company enter the field in the rental business in New York City, approximately? A. If you will be good enough to let me refresh my memory, I have some data in that affidavit there. Q. I show the witness an affidavit dated December 16th, 1911. Is that a copy of the affidavit made out by you on the date stated? A. Yes, it is. Q. That is in the case of The Greater New York Film Rental Company against the Motion Picture Patents Company and others; I show you that for the purpose of refreshing your recollection. A. (after examining paper) : The General Film Company entered business about April or May, 1910.