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 3
Leaf #:
000202
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 21, 2023
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.

1428 H. N. Marvin, Direct Examination. leasing the required minimum quantity of licensed motion pictures. Q. You mean that it was not leasing licensed motion pictures to the amount of $2,500 per month, as stipulated in the exchange license agreement? A. Yes, sir. Q. Was this cancellation referred to in any bulletin? A. It was. It was referred to in Exchange Bulletin No. 8. Q. Was there a licensed rental exchange known as the S. Nye Bass Film Exchange, located at New Orleans, La.? A. There was. Q. Was the license of the S. Nye Bass Film Exchange cancelled by the Motion Picture Patents Company? A. It was cancelled on February 8, 1910. Q. Do you know when this exchange was licensed? A. It was licensed on the 28th of July, 1909. Q. What was the reason for the cancellation of the S. Nye Bass Film Exchange's license? A. The financial condition of this exchange had been bad from the outset, and it kept getting into debt more and more to the licensed producers of motion pictures; it did not make payments to these producers as called for in its license, and at the time of the cancellation of the license it was indebted to the licensed producers to the extent of about $8,000. The exchange continued to do business after its license was cancelled, and finally, on November 22nd, 1910, its supply of motion pictures was purchased by the General Film Company. Q. Was the license of the S. Nye Bass Film Exchange reinstated or restored before the purchase of its motion pictures by the General Film Company? A. No. Q. Did Eugene Cline own and manage or run licensed rental exchanges at Chicago, 111., and at Salt Lake City, Utah? A. He did. Q. Were his licenses cancelled? A. They were. Q. When were they cancelled, and what was the reason for the cancellations? A. They were cancelled on 20th of March, 1909, on two weeks' notice. They were leasing less than the required quantity of motion pictures, and Cline was making no pretense of observing the conditions of his license. Q. Was there a licensed rental exchange known as the Columbia Film Exchange, located at Pittsburgh, Pa.? A. There was.