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 00081 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 #:
00081
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. 1307 Q. Can you tell us how many exhibitors served by these two exchanges were cancelled during* the period to which I have referred, and how many were reinstated? A. I have prepared a memorandum of those figures. Q. And is this memorandum an accurate one? A. It is. Q. Prepared from the records of the Patents Company office? A. Yes. Q. Have you it in your possession? A. I have. Q. What does that memorandum show with reference to the number of cancellations of exhibitors served by the Greater New York Film Rental Company? A. This memorandum shows that during the period running from 1910 to 1913, the licenses of 44 exhibitors taking service from the Greater New York Film Rental Company in New York City and vicinity were cancelled. Of these 44 exhibitors, 15 were subsequently reinstated through application of the Greater New York Film Rental Company, and eleven were reinstated through application by the General Film Company. Eighteen had not then been reinstated. During that same period, the licenses of 83 exhibitors who were taking their service from the General Film Company, were cancelled. Of these, the licenses of 55 were subsequently reinstated, upon application of the General Film Company, and the licenses of ten were reinstated upon application of the Greater New York Film Rental Company. The license of one exhibitor was reinstated upon application of a rental exchange other than the Greater New York Film Rental Company and the General Film Company. The licenses of 17 have not been reinstated. This statement indicates that the number of the former customers of the Greater New York Film Rental Company who subsequently through the cancellation and reinstatement became customers of the General Film Company, was 11. It further shows that the number of customers who were lost to the General Film Company and gained by the Greater New York Film Rental Company through cancellation and reinstatement, was 10; so that during this period, the net loss of customers to the Greater New York Film Rental Company through the above described cancellation and reinstatement of license, was one customer. Mr. KlNGSLEY: I offer the statement in evidence.