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 000301 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 #:
000301
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.

Harry Schwalbe, Cross Examination. 2151 Q. Was his license cancelled after the other three had been acquired by the General Film Company? A. Yes, sir. Q. Yon stated on direct examination that your company, the Electric Theatre Supply Company, was a member of the Film Service Association? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you attend the meetings of that association? A. Yes, sir. Q. At what place? A. I attended them at Pittsburgh and Buffalo. Q. What were the objects of the association? A. The principal object appeared to be, or it was stated to us, at least, that the object was to strengthen the market, and to stop the unfair competition of exchanges who were importing film and bringing it in ahead of films released in the regular way by the then representatives of the foreign concerns here. One of the objects appeared to be, to stop this. We would buy films and find that someone had imported that film before we got it and put it on the market, and therefore it was valueless to us. Q. And by "strengthening the market" you mean to improve the business conditions? A. Yes, sir, so that a man had some reasonable certainty of getting films that were not released here before, and to improve business conditions in other ways by placing standing orders, and also there was some talk of license litigation — patent litigation, on account of the then licensees. Q. Were there any manufacturers present in the meeting? A. In Pittsburgh, I don't remember that there were. In Buffalo, yes. Q. Who was present at Buffalo? A. Mr. Rock and Mr. Lubin were two that I know of, or recollect, were present. I don't remember any others. Q. On direct examination you testified there was in 1906 competition between the licensed manufacturers in your territory. Now, isn't it a fact that after the license agreements were entered into, the prices at which the licensed manufacturers distributed their films were the same for all of them? Mr. Caldwell: Objected to, on the ground that the contract itself is in evidence and shows merely that a minimum price was established.