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 #:
000499
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.

Albert E. Smith, Direct Examination. 1725 numberless others, whose names I do not recall at this moment. Q. Have you recently made any large expenditure in connection with the production of motion picture specialties, or a motion picture specialty? A. We are all the time expending large sums of money. For one picture, we purchased two engines from the Pennsylvania Railroad on Long Island, transported them with cars, on a flat car, to a disused railroad, which we leased over in Jersey, and smashed the engines together, merely to get a single effect, which takes thirty or forty 2 seconds in the picture, and which cost us from twenty to thirty thousand dollars. We smashed two yachts together to get a collision effect. We smashed two aeroplanes together in the making of a war story, showing the usages of aeroplanes, and other things, in war times. Mr. Grosvenor: Was there anybody in the aeroplanes? The Witness: Yes, sir. There was a dummy in the aeroplane. The man who played the star part for us, 3 offered to stay in the aeroplane when it dropped, but we were afraid to take a chance. He was not. By Mr. Kingsley: Q. Has it been your experience since entering into the Edison license agreement, and since becoming a licensee of the Motion Picture Patents Company, that the license agreement tended to any limitation of output? A. No, sir. Q. Has it been your experience since that time, that the license agreement tended to a restriction of prices? A. T think the license agreement specified the prices at which the films should be leased. Q. And was that a minimum price? A. A minimum, yes. I think it was a minimum. Q. Was there any restriction against the higher price than that set out in the license agreement? A. Oh, no. But we have received higher prices. Q. Has it been your experience that since that time, the license agreement tended to prevent or eliminate com