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 00059 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 #:
00059
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. 1909 in which we would have the benefit of using these patents, but I had been given to understand that we could have a license under those patents. Q. What connection, if any, did you have with the organization of the General Film Company? A. I was one of the incorporators, and one of the first Directors. Q. When was the first time that you heard any discussion among any of the licensed producers as to the organization by the licensed producers of a rental agency to be conducted by them? A. Some months prior to its organization, probably in January prior to its organization. Q. Were you at first in favor of the project? A. I was indifferent. I had had no experience in the exchange business, and I was not able to form any opinion regarding it. Q. In stating that you were "indifferent'' to the project, do you mean bv that to sav that vou were unwilling to go into it, or that you wanted to go into it? A. I was timid about such a move, not having had any experience in the exchange business. We were selling to the exchanges. Q. Were there any reasons which finally influenced you to give your consent to go into it? A. The manner in which the exchanges were conducted led me to believe that there should be a change for the benefit of the business. Many exchanges were conducted in a wTay in which they were able to pay promptly, and others were not ; and others treated their customers unfairly, which made me believe that there should be some change in the business for the benefit of the business as a whole, and in order that Ave would have a market for our films, and could distribute them freely among the exhibitors. But, even with that, I was timid in regard to organizing such a company. Q. You have stated that the exchanges conducted business unfairly towards the exhibitors. Did you ever have any complaints from any of the exhibitors about the way in which the exchanges conducted their business? A. Those complaints came to our office from the exhibitors. The exhibitors felt that as they were using pictures produced by us that we ought to see that they could have the films for exhibition when they could exhibit them. Q. Were those complaints many and frequent, or were they few and far between? A. They were frequent.