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)

Page scan 00035 from 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 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 4
Leaf #:
00035
Language:
English
Collection:
Government & Law and Early Cinema
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 12, 2024
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.

James S. Blackton, Direct Examination. 1885 which were doing business, as we thought, to our detriment, 1 and to the detriment of the industry, for the better securing of our money, and to serve the many and increasing number of customers better than they were being served. Q. Had you heard complaints of the practices of the managers or owners of rental exchanges? A. Yes, sir. Q. What were some of the complaints that were brought to your attention? A. Oh, there were repeated complaints of unfairness, of unfair competition, of the unbusinesslike methods used by men who were running exchanges at that time, discriminations, and the greatest cause of complaint, I believe, was from exchange managers who also owned theatres 2 — that they would invariably use the films which they purchased in their own theatres first, and then rent them out to their customers, and there was a great deal of complaint in those days about using films after they were unfit for exhibition, so that people who went in to see a motion picture show were disgusted with it, and would come out and not go in again. The films were patched, torn, full of marks and scratches, and they were very unpleasant to look at. Q. What is the life of a motion picture film in active use? A. Anywhere from one month to six months, according to the number of times it is used. 3 Q. Do you recall an occasion in the latter part of 1911 when one William Fox called upon Albert E. Smith at the Vitagraph Company's establishment in Brooklyn? A. Yes. Q. Do you and Mr. Smith occupy the same or adjacent offices? A. We occupy the same office. Q. Did Mr. Smith and Mr. Fox have a conversation while you were in the office? A. Yes. Q. Were you seated at your desk in the office during part of this conversation or all of it? A. During almost all of it. The room is about this size, and the desks are as far . apart as they can be in a room of this size. Q. Did you have occasion to notice anything with respect to that conversation? A. I noticed that Mr. Fox talked a great deal, and Mr. Smith talked very little. Q. Were you told that the conversation was confidential? A. No. Q. Was any attempt made, so far as you observed, to prevent you from hearing what was said? A. I could not help but hear it.