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 000130 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 #:
000130
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.

1356 H. N. Marvin, Direct Examination. certain day on which the exhibition of that drama would be permitted in all parts of the country, and the motion pictures were released simultaneously all over the country. The Motion Picture Company, in its bulletin to exchanges on this subject, called attention to this rule or custom, and definitely fixed the hour of the day of release — when the day should be considered to start. Q. Was it the purpose of the Patents Company to enforce this release day rule strictly with respect to the hour upon which the release day started? A. Yes. It was found that unless the rule was strictly observed as to the hour it would lose much of its value. Q. In speaking of the financial irresponsibility of some of the rental exchanges, did you have reference to the transitory character of their business, or their fluctuating patronage? A. Yes. That was one of the factors that contributed to affect their financial responsibility, since ordinarily they had little or no assets other than their interest in the motion picture subjects in their possession, and of course any diminution in the number of their customers, or the prices paid by their customers, would immediately and seriously affect their financial condition. Q. When were negotiations instituted between the Kinemacolor Company and the Motion Picture Patents Company, relative to the issuance of that license? A. The M'otion Picture Patents Company had instituted suit against the Kinemacolor Company under one of its patents, and when it became time for that suit to be brought up on the calendar, which, I think was during the first month or two of the year 1913, the Kinemacolor Company applied for a license to the Patents Company, and negotiations were then started looking to the licensing of the Kinemacolor Company. For one reason or another, owing to the absence of some of the interested parties, and the illness of others, these negotiations dragged along over a considerable period of time before the license was finally granted, but at the first interview between the representatives of the Patents Company and the representatives of the Kinemacolor Company, at the time I have mentioned, both parties expressed a willingness to enter into such a license agreement, and there practically remained little to do after that, other than to arrange the terms on which such a license should be granted and accepted. Q. Did you continue as Vice-President of the Motion Pic