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 00073 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 #:
00073
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, Cross Examination. L923 pany and considering the subject of the extension of the business of the General Film Company? A. I don't know that it was the same persons considering the acquiring of exchanges. It was the same persons that were considering the business of the General Film Company as a whole. Q. That is, the same persons were Directors and also attending the meetings of the licensed manufacturers? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, don't you think that the fact that the same men were Directors of the General Film Company, which was buying up rental exchanges, and were also licensed manufacturers having meetings, recommending cancellations to the Patents Company, had considerable effect upon the attitude of these rental exchanges whom you have testified were willing and anxious in some cases to sell out? Mr. Kingsley: Objected to as incompetent, immaterial and calling for the conclusion of the witness. The Witness : 1 don't think it would affect them in that respect at all. There were exchanges whose business was small, were not making profits, and when they had an opportunity to sell, they were willing to sell, and offered their exchanges. By Mr. Grosvenor : Q. And you think the fact that these manufacturers, through the Patents Company, were cancelling some of the licenses in that period, had no effect upon inducing other rental exchanges to sell out to the General Film Company? Mr. Caldwell: That is objected to on the ground that it contains a misstatement of fact. Mr. Grosvenor: Please point out wherein there is a misstatement of fact. Mr. Caldwell: That the manufacturers were, through the Patents Company, cancelling licenses. Mr. Grosvenor: Well, the witness has testified that the licensed manufacturers were having meetings and recommending cancellations to the Patents Company. Mr. Caldwell: But the evidence in this case dis