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 00053 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 3
Leaf #:
00053
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.

H. N. Marvin, Direct Examination. 1279 Exchange. It was not essential to the purchase of the Greater New York Film Rental Company by the General Film Company, that that exchange should be licensed. The General Film Company bought the property of an exchange whose license had been cancelled long months before the purchase was made. Q. On the occasion of this conversation over the telephone between you and Mr. Kennedy, did Mr. Kennedy say to you, in terms or in substance : "In this case, I want the license reinstated, so that the General Film Company can purchase the business of the Greater New York Film Rental Company?" A. Nothing of that kind was stated. Q. The reasons which Mr. Kennedy gave for asking the withdrawal of the cancellation you have already stated, have you not? A. I have already stated the only reasons that he gave. Q. And the reason that actuated you in sending the letter of withdrawal to the Greater New York Film Rental Company, you have already stated? A. I have already stated. In order to make that entirely clear, I might explain more fully that a large number of the customers of the Greater New York Film Rental Company who, by the terms of their license, could only make use of licensed film, expected to get their daily supply of motion pictures from the Greater New York Film Rental Company. If those exhibitors should come to the Greater New York Film Rental Company after its license was cancelled and before its property had been purchased by the General Film Company, they would have found that they were unable to obtain the more recent issues of licensed motion pictures. Their service would be disorganized. It would be in confusion. They would be compelled to go either without those licensed films or go to some other licensed exchange to get them, and it seemed unnecessary and undesirable to put them to that inconvenience for a few days pending the conclusion of the purchase of the Greater New York Film Rental Company's property by the General Film Company. Q. Had you, in fact, extended the license in the Marcus Loew case? A. We withdrew the notice of cancellation. Q. Is this a copy of the notice of the withdrawal of