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 000519 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 #:
000519
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.

J. M. Ensor, Redirect Examination. 1137 over there, and I was so disgusted the way it went, and we lost on it, that I can't tell you what we did call that theatre. Q. Now, the next one? A. One at Durango. Q. What was the name of that? A. It was in the Opera House; Requa ran that for us. Q. Where were the others? A. That is all we had. Q. Five or four? A. Four, I think. Q. These films which you shipped around to the various States there, you rented, did you not? A. There was a contract. I don't know whether you would call it rented, or leased, or what, Q. When you sent them out, the exhibitor would return them to you? A. Yes, sir. Q. And you rented them to the exhibitor? A. Yes, sir. Q. And those were films which you had obtained from the Motion Picture Patents Company under a license, by virtue of a rental contract, or license agreement? A. Whatever that contract is. Q. Now, you say you were offered $16,400 cash in five years' time in twenty payments at five per cent., and f 6,500 in seven per cent, preferred stock? A. I think that was it. I will look at it again (looking at paper). Mr. Grosvenor: When was this memorandum of figures which you are using, written by you? The Witness : When I was at New York, at the Edison Building — that was some time in June. $14,600 at five per cent., in twenty payments, in five years, and $6,500 in preferred stock at seven per cent. By Mr. Kingsley: Q. Would you mind letting me look at that memorandum? A. No, sir (passing counsel paper). Q. You are still in the rental exchange business, are you not? A. I am sub-renting some films. Q. Handling independent films? A. Yes, sir. Redirect examination by Mr. Grosvenor: Q. This Buckwalter referred to by you, whatever his relation to Selig, was as a matter of fact, made local manager of the General Film Company as soon as a branch of