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 #:
000500
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.

1726 Albert E. Smith, Direct Examination. petition between you and other licensed producers? A. No, sir, there was the keenest of competition at all times. Q. What would you say as to the quality of foreign pictures at the time of the formation of the Patents Company? A. The foreign pictures were superior to the domestic. Mr. Grosvenor: In spite of all of these patents? The Witness : It was the patents that had held us back. By Mr. Kingsley: Q. Since the beginning of 1908, when you entered into the license agreement, and when you entered into the Edison license agreement, continuing down past the time when you entered into the license agreement with the Motion Picture Patents Company, has the number of negatives turned out by your plant increased or diminished? A. Increased largely. Q. And by that I mean negatives of motion picture plays. A. Yes, sir. Q. How large an increase would you say had taken place at your plant since you entered into the license agreement? A. At the time we were entering into the license agreements, I think we were putting out about two subjects a week that might run in most cases, from a thousand to two thousand feet, to the best of my recollection. At the time we entered into the license agreement, we had not yet arrived at that condition where we endeavored to make each subject a thousand feet in length. We were not particular about the length of the subject, as long as it was well inside of a thousand feet, whereas, at the present time, in our studios, we turn out — we have ten directors working in Brooklyn and four directors working in Santa Monica, California. I think we never turn out less than twelve thousand feet per week. Q. By that do you mean twelve thousand feet of negatives? A. Twelve thousand feet of finished negatives. To make that twelve thousand feet of finished negatives, means making about thirty thousand feet in the initial stage. Q. How many plays does that mean, roughly speaking?