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 #:
000286
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 21, 2023
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.

2 904 George W. Bennethum, Cross Examination. 1 By Mr. Grosvenor: Q. At the time that this letter was written, namely, November 27th, 1911, had you exhibited in your theatres any films which had not been made by the so-called licensed manufacturers? A. No, sir. Cross examination by Mr. Kingsley: Q. You say you never ran any unlicensed films in any of your theatres? A. Not at the time that I was licensed. Q. Up to the time of your cancellation, do you mean by that? A. Yes, sir. Mr. Grosvenor: That is not quite clear. Do you mean that up to the time your license was cancelled you had not shown any films in your theatres which had not been made by the licensed manufacturers? The Witness : Yes, sir. For all theatres that I was paying a royalty of $2 a week, I showed none but licensed pictures. By Mr. Kingsley : Q. What did you show in theatres in which you were not paying |2 a week royalty? A. Independent pictures. Q. And where were these theatres? A. Well, I think at that time there was only one house at Coatesville where I was showing Independent pictures, Q. Didn't you have one in Wilkes-Barre? A. No, sir. Never owned or was interested in a theatre in Wilkes-Barre. Q. But you did have one in Coatesville? A. In Coatesville, the Coatesville Opera House, I think I ran films not licensed, because I did not pay any license for the theatre. Q. But you had an agreement with the Patents Company, did you not, to the effect that you were to exhibit only licensed films? A. In theatres where I paid a license for them. Q. But you also had an agreement with the Patents Company that you were not to exhibit licensed films in one theatre and unlicensed films in another theatre, did you not? A. No, sir; not to my recollection. Q. What exchange were you connected with at that time? A. About that time, in 1911, I bought stock in the Exhibitors Film Exchange.