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 00055 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 #:
00055
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.

Samuel Long, Direct Examination. 1905 Q. Then it was discontinued after the settlement of the so-called warfare between the Biograph Company and the Edison Company, is that right? A. It was. Q. What effect, if any, did this litigation between the Biograph Company and the Edison Company have on your business? A. At what period? Q. During the year 1908? A. It made us feel nervous, and it affected exhibitors who we thought might obtain licenses to exhibit pictures under the patents held by the Biograph Company, and to a large extent exclude the pictures which were licensed under the other patents, and in that way we feared a diminution of our market. Q. Were you afraid that if that litigation succeeded your business might be closed up? A. Yes, if it had succeeded we would have not had an outlet for our film. Q. Now, Mr. Long, when did the Kalem Company first build and equip a factory for the printing of motion pictures from the negatives? A. An office was opened in January, 1907, and some laboratory equipment and studio equipment was provided in February of 1907. Q. And what was the extent of the business done by the Kalem Company in the year 1907? A. We produced a motion picture about every two or three weeks. No regular dates of issue were then in vogue. Q. And was the rate of production gradually increased after you obtained an Edison license? A. It was. After obtaining an Edison license we increased the producing facilities, and also the laboratory equipment, Q. Now, after you became a licensee of the Motion Picture Patents Company, what effect, if any, did that have on your business so far as output went? A. We felt that we could invest moiv money in the business, enlarging the output; which we proceeded to do after the granting of a license by the Patents Company. Q. What was your production, say, in December, 1909? A. Possibly one reel a week, one reel of subject matter per week. About the end of 1909 and the beginning of 1910 our output was increased from one motion picture production per week to two productions per week. Q. Now, when was the next increase that you made in your production of motion pictures? A. In 1911. We in