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 00060 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 #:
00060
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.

1910 Samuel Long, Direct Examination. Q. At the time of the organization of the General Film Company was it your idea that the General Film Company would acquire all of the then existing licensed exchanges? A. No, it was not my personal idea. This plan had been proposed, and, as I said, I was timid about it. Q. And by "this plan" you mean the plan to acquire them all? Mr. Grosvenor : I object to that as leading. 9 The Witness : No, the plan of the organization of a com pany to do a rental business. By Mr. Caldwell: Q. As far as you know, was it the plan of any of the other persons who organized that company to acquire them all? A. I don't think so. Q. Well, what was the plan, so far as you understood it? A. It was to acquire such exchange or exchanges as might be offered for sale, and operate them in a manner that would be an object lesson to the exhibitors, and also to the other ex3 changes, and, if other exchanges were offered, to have representation in the principal distributing film centers of the United States. Q. During the year 1908 was the Kalem Company in competition with the other licensed producers? A. It was. Q. In what respects were they competing? A. They were competing in the actors and actresses which they engaged, the merit of their scenarios, the excellence of their photographic work, the excellence of the scenic artists which constituted a part of the picture, the costuming; in advertising their products, in the disposition of them to exchanges through solicitors. Q. During the year 1908 did the Kalem Company exert itself much among the exchanges to bring its pictures before them? A. The Kalem Company had a solicitor frequently visit the exchanges in order to increase the use of their film productions. The advertising department also did extensive advertising. Q. Did any of the other licensed producers do the same tiling, or do you know? A. Yes, I do. Our competitors had solicitors who worked very much in the same manner.