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 000141 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 #:
000141
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:
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. ~~>(.> let it stay on the record like that. It is good enough 1 for me. Q. When did the amount of unlicensed film become sufficient to meet the requirements of the independent theatres and managers? A. It has not altogether reached it yet. Q. Didn't you swear in the suit of the Greater New York Film Rental Company against the Biograph Company and the General Film Company that it had reached that proportion last May? A. I think I qualified it by stating that it met the generalities of the demand but not all of it. The demand in New York is six or seven reels a day. We cannot meet that. Q. In May of last year how many exchanges were there in the United States that were dealing in unlicensed film? A. About 30. Q. They were not handling Biograph film, were they? A. No. Q. All of it was purely unlicensed film, the thirty that you refer to ? A. All of it unlicensed, yes. Q. Now, Mr. Swanson. in the case of the Greater New York Film Rental Company against the Biograph Company r> and the General Film Company, were you asked to make a general statement relative to the business of the rental exchanges and exhibitors, and the general progress of the motion picture business in the United States? A. I was. Q. And did you on that occasion make this statement: "A. The licensed film exchange would receive requests, either by telegraph, telephone, letter or verbally from an exhibitor for service of the licensed film. The licensed film exchange manager thereupon would furnish that film, providing he was satisfied of the character of the man he was doing business with, temporarily until such time as 4 he could report the taking on of that client to the New York office of the Motion Picture Patents Company. The Patents Company had a rule permitting the licensed exchanges to furnish any applicant that seemed satisfactory to the local exchange manager, with service for a certain number of days, until such time as this exhibitor would be enabled to send in a request for a licensed theatre to the Patents Company. The Patents Company then reserved the right to either furnish a license to the exhibitor or reject his application for it. In the event that the theatre did