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 #:
000494
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:
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.

1112 Keubbn Solz, Direct Examination. Redirect examination by Mr. Grosvenor: Q. Mr. Henry, was there any fuller explanation you desired to make in connection with any of these subjects which you have talked about on cross examination? A. No. That I felt a grievance, and they were not granting me the privilege to run an independent feature, whereas my competitor did exhibit an independent feature and films, the advertisements of which I supplied to the Patents Company. Q. And his license was not cancelled when the matter was brought to their attention? A. The matter was brought to their attention, and he continued to operate, and he was not cancelled. I never heard of him even being fined. REUBEN SOLZ, a witness subpoenaed on behalf of the petitioner, being first duly sworn by the Examiner, testified as follows: Direct examination by Mr. Grosvenor: Q. Where do you live? A. 1215 Fifth Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Q. Mr. Solz, are you interested in a moving picture theatre in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania? A. Yes, sir. Q. What is the name of that theatre? A. Majestic Theatre. Q. Did you at any time exhibit in your theatre socalled licensed films? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you ever have any trouble with the Motion Picture Patents Company in connection with the exhibition of other films in your theatre? A. Yes, sir. Q. Please state in your own way how that matter arose, and what you did, and whom you saw in connection therewith? A. From 1908, when T first started, T run all the association pictures. I never had any trouble until 1912, until I ran in what they call an independent picture. They cancelled my license. Q. Had you exhibited any pictures except the socalled license or trust pictures up to the Fall of 1912? A. Not that I remember of.