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 #:
000205
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.

H. N. Marvin, Direct Examination. 1431 of the O. T. Crawford Exchange was cancelled by the Patents Company July 19th, 1910. Q. Each one of these branches at some time or another, had separate licenses, did it not? A. They did. Q. Did one Harry Davis have licensed rental exchanges at Pittsburgh, Pa., Buffalo, N. Y., and Philadelphia, Pa.? A. He did. Q. Were the licenses of these exchanges cancelled by the Motion Picture Patents Company? A. They were, on May 15th, 1909. Q. Will you give us the reasons for the cancellations? A. About the time, or shortly after the time, when the licenses were granted to Davis he got into financial difficulties. He was said to be interested in the operation of theatres, and he apparently was not able to operate his exchanges at a profit, and he did not lease the required quantity of film, and the exchanges did practically no business. Q. He had been a lessee for not more than three or four months? A. That is all. Q. Was there a licensed rental exchange known as the Dixie Film Company, located at New Orleans, La.? A. There was. Q. And also known as the Swanson-Dixie Company? A. Yes. Q. W7hat change took place in that exchange? A. That exchange voluntarily surrendered its license on the 24th of March, 1909. Q. Was any reason given in the communication by the Dixie Film Company surrendering its license? A. No. Q. Was there a rental exchange known as the Duquesne Amusement Supply Company, located at Norfolk, Va.? A. There was. Q. Was the license of that exchange cancelled? A. It was cancelled on June 6, 1909, for failure to lease the required quantity of film. The supply of motion pictures in this exchange was moved to the Pittsburgh branch of the exchange, with the permission of the Patents Company. Q. Was a new license offered to the Duquesne Amusement Snpply Company for a rental exchange at Norfolk, Va.? A. It was, but it was declined. Q. With reference to the Pittsburgh branch of the Du