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 00075 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 #:
00075
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. 1301 from other licensed exchanges. We find that under our return proposition many exchanges that have been established a long time, and that have large quantities of old film, are able to make the required return of film from their oldest and most worthless stocks. We have heretofore permitted this to be done, because it has the desired effect of gradually getting old and worthless stock from the market, but at the same time the new exchange, as compared with its longer-established competitor, is placed at an unfair disadvantage. Until February 1st, 1910, we will permit any licensed exchange to purchase from another licensed exchange and return to the manufacturers an amount of film equal to that which the exchange would be required to return under our license agreements. It should, however, be distinctly understood that if any exchange takes advantage of this offer, the film that it purchases for return must have been sold prior to January 1st, 1909, for the reason that since that date all licensed film has been leased, and the title to the same is vested in the manufacturer, and no exchange has the right to sell the same. Film purchased from one exchange by another exchange, for the purpose of return, must be shipped direct to the manufacturers by the exchange from which the film is purchased. The film and the bills of lading for the film so returned should be distinctly marked, so that the manufacturers will know to which exchange the film is to be credited. Film must not be shipped from one exchange to another exchange. If any exchange purchases film for return from another exchange, the exchange that makes the purchase and the exchange that sells the film must send to this Company statements showing the amount of film purchased and the date of purchase, together with the names of the purchaser and the seller. If exchanges that desire to sell or purchase old film, for the purpose of return, will notify us, we will endeavor to put such exchanges into communication with each other. Exchanges are warned that on and after February 1st, 1910, the requirements for the return of film will be strictly in accordance with the provisions of the license agreements. MOTION PICTURE PATENTS COMPANY