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 #:
000595
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.

Acton R. Boone, Redirect Examination. 1213 films, isn't that right? A. No. The films were released on 1 the same day. We had the same films. We could have diverted them from one point to another. Redirect examination by Mr. Grosvenor: Q. You mean the General Film Company got better service from the licensed manufacturers than you did? A. I would not say that, but surely, if they did, it was a discrimination that we did not suspect. The films were supposed to be the same. 2 Recross examination by Mr. Caldwell: Q. You said the General Film Company furnished newer pictures than yours? A. Newer than were customarily going into that point. Q. Then their advantage was due to their furnishing a superior product, was it not? A. No; I would not say so. I won't say that they sent films on the day of release to Atlanta, but I will say that for the same film of a given age, that they cut the price in half. Q. Was there any such thing as uniformity in prices at that time? A. There was a limit of downward trend, and there was a limit of upward trend on account of the customer. Q. Prices were not stable at all? A. The prices varied, yes; in various towns, however. Q. They varied very much even for the same kind of service, did they not? A. No more than they do today. Redirect examination by Mr. Grosvenor: Q. Has the complete payment been made by the General Film Company for this property which they acquired from 4 you about three years ago? A. No. Q. Was all the stock given to you? A. No stock has been delivered. We have requested the stock a number of times and it has never been delivered to us. Q. How much of the money which was to be paid has been paid you? A. I really could not tell you offhand, but in stock and money they owe the two companies $17,500 with interest, except the dividend interest. Q. What was the amount which they were to pay you