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 #:
000504
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.

1730 Albert E. Smith, Direct Examination. Thereupon ALBERT E. SMITH resumed the stand. Examination continued by Mr. Kingsley: Q. Did you tell us Friday what was the average life of a motion picture in actual use? A. I don't think I did. Q. What is the average life of such a picture? A, Around six months. Q. Is it necessary in the motion picture art to have rental exchanges? A. I think so. Q. Have you had occasion to notice how the motion picture business is advertised by various producers? A. Well, I think, without exception, they advertise in all the trade papers that are going. Q. W7hat else do they do? A. And they circularize the exchanges and the exhibitors in booklets, pamphlets, and sheets giving descriptions and explanations of the productions they are releasing. Q. Do they prepare posters for the exchanges? A. Yes, all sizes of posters from a four sheet up to twenty-four sheet stand. Q. Is it your judgment that there is active and vigorous competition among the licensed producers of motion pictures? A. Very keen and very vigorous competition at all times, each one doing his utmost to beat out his competitor in every sense of the word. Q. Now the question I asked you related only to the present time. Has this competition been vigorous and active for several years past? A. As long as I have been interested in the art. Q. At the time of the existence of the Edison license agreement, was there active competition among the Edison licensees? A. Yes, sir. Q. And, after the signing of the agreement with the Motion Picture Patents Company, did this competition continue? A. The competition continued without diminishing at all times. Q. After the formation of the General Film Company was there any cessation of this competition? A. No, sir. Q. Friday, if I recall correctly, you stated that the Vitagraph Company, in spite of the fact that it had been receiving and had been credited with some dividends by the General Film Company, was not making any more money