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 000357 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 #:
000357
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.

Albert J. Gii^igham, Direct Examination. 2207 exchange furnish them with the films, showing the exhibitor, through their advertising matter, that the film was a very desirable subject. Q. Did you observe in your territory that your customers demanded reels of certain producers in preference to others? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did that competition between the licensed manufacturers continue after January, 1909? A. Yes, sir; if anything, more pronounced than what it was before. Q. And does it continue at the present time? A. It even continues to this date. Well, they do not solicit orders from the managers of the General Film Company, but they still circularize the exhibitor, sending out synopses of the story of the film, and in a great many instances send out illustrations from the various scenes, and even send out photographs of their stars, both male and female, that appear in these productions, and try to create a demand for the film through the exhibitor. Q. Do you find that the popularity of certain brands of films of the licensed manufacturers has varied from time to time in your territory? A. Yes, sir. Q. And is that still going on? A. Yes, sir. Q. About when did you sell your exchange, the National Vaudette Film Company, to the General Film Company? A. Arrangements were made in August, 1910, but the exchange was not turned over until November 21st, 1910. Q. Will you state the circumstances that led up to that sale, with whom you negotiated and how they were instituted? A. Well, we had heard that the General Film Company had been formed, and that they were purchasing exchanges. One of the first that they purchased, I believe, was Mr. Howard's, of Boston, and while in Chicago, George Kleine stated that he had sold his exchanges, and from time to time we were informed, and heard it in bulletins, or rather, through information from various men, exchange men, that their exchanges had been sold. So, Mr. Mandelbaum, who was a stockholder of the National Vaudette Film Company, and who was also interested in the Lake Shore Film Company of Cleveland, called me on the telephone and suggested that we go to New York and receive an offer for our exchange. I wired Mr. J. J. Kennedy, at No. 10 Fifth Avenue, NewYork, asking for an appointment, and Mr. Gleiehman and I came to New York from Detroit, and Mr. Mandelbaum came