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 000371 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 #:
000371
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. Gilligham, Cross Examination. 2221 Q. One of the objects in forming the Film Service Association was to regulate that condition and remove those unpleasant conditions? A. Yes, sir. Q. You said that you attended various meetings of the Film Service Association? A. I attended every one except the one at Pittsburgh, Mr. Grosvenor. Q. Some of the objects in forming the Film Service Association were to fix the prices of service, weren't they? A. No, not particularly. That was afterwards. The principal thing was to try and regulate the sub-rental evil and other evils that existed among the exhibitors. Q. Then these regulations which are shown in the by-laws of the Film Service Association were adopted by the rental exchange men themselves? A. Yes, sir. Q. Without co-operation from the manufacturers? A. The manufacturers might have made suggestions to them, but the Film Service Association was composed of renters. Q. Quite a number of the manufacturers were interested in rental exchanges, which were members of the Film Service Association? A. No, sir. I believe there was only one or two. Mr. Kleine was not a member of it, because Mr. Kleine was on the outside with his exchanges at that time, and the Vitagraph Company, I was informed, owned one exchange, and Lubin and the Vitagraph Company were the only manufacturers that were in the exchange business, that were members of that Association, Q. You say that after the Film Service Association was formed, that there was an improvement in prices for a time? A. Short time. Q. The Biograph Company refused to join in with the Edison licensees, that was known to you, was it not? A. I could not answer that, for I don't know. Q. Don't you know that Kleine and the Biograph Company, in 1908, did not join in with the Edison licensees? A. I know that there was an affiliation between Kleine and the Biograph Company, but whether the Biograph Company refused a license from the Edison Company, I could not say. Q. Well, members of the Film Service Association in 1908, confined their purchases of film to the Edison licensees? A. The Edison licensees, yes, sir. Q. And they did not buy from the Biograph Company or from Kleine? A. Not that I know of.