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 000140 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 #:
000140
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.

1990 James S. Blackton, Direct Examination. received no intimation of such a proceeding on your part we were surprised at the notification, in view of the fact that there had been no dissatisfaction expressed in regard to our fulfillment of the contract, nor any other disagreement with the possible exception of our inability to pay the ten per cent, royalty claimed by the Edison Co. We however, went over this matter with Mr. White and, after submitting a statement of our business for two months showing amount taken in and amount of running expenses we demonstrated that we could not possibly pay ten per cent, of our gross receipts, and still remain in business, as we are under extremely heavy expense in maintaining our present premises until the expiration of our lease on June 1st, 1901. At the time of our conversation with Mr. White we understood that he was to confer with the Edison Co. and in submitting our case for their consideration, was instructed to state that we were quite willing to pay a reasonable royalty on our business, and we have been daily expecting an answer. We are willing to submit our books for examination and prove our assertion that it is impossible for us, in our present situation, to pay the amount required. After careful figuring we now submit the following propositions for your consideration : — We will agree to pay to the Edison Company, at the expiration of each week, the sum of five per cent, of the gross amount we receive for our exhibitions. Or, Having on hand between three and four thousand feet of Foreign films, and being compelled to purchase from time to time other new Imported subjects, we are willing to pay the sum of Five Dollars ($5.00) per one hundred foot strip as royalty on all Foreign films in our possession and on nil new subjects purchased. As you may be aware we buy all the new films manufactured by the Edison Co. but Ave cannot possibly fill our engagements with none but Edison films, and successfully compete with other exhibitors using Foreign and American films of all makes, until the output of new Edison subjects is much greater than at present. We understand from Mr. Edmonds that it is against the policy of the Edison Co. to commit themselves in writing regarding the licensing of Foreign films in this country but