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 000372 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 #:
000372
Language:
English
Collection:
Early Cinema and Government & Law
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.

2222 Albert J. Gilligham, Cross Examination. Q. And then, immediately, very fierce competition developed between Kleine and the Biograph Company, and their exchanges, with the exchanges of the Edison licensees? A. Kleine and the Biograph Company put up a good fight. They gave us a good fight. Q. And the competition caused by Kleine and the Biograph Company was one of the reasons why prices which had been improved by the Film Service Association, did not remain in that improved condition? A. No, sir. The reason for the change in prices was because of the reason of the unprincipled competition and acting in bad faith of members of the Film Service Association, before even the Kleine and Biograph deal was arranged, so that they could put out a strong program against us, that our own members started this upsetting of conditions. Q. And the upsetting of conditions was still further increased by Kleine and the Biograph Company setting out and fighting the rest of you? A. Very much so. Yes, sir. Q. And all you Film Service Association men took out uniform contracts for the buying of film with all of the Edison licensee manufacturers? A. No. Not uniform. There was a uniform contract with each manufacturer, if that is what you mean, sir? Q. Yes. A. Yes. That is perfectly true. Q. That is to say, you signed a contract for your exchange with the Edison Company, and with the Essauay Company and Lubin Company, and so forth? A. No, I would not say that we ever signed any contract with the Essanay Company and the others. We ordered films from them, you understand, and we had to give them, you understand, a certain period of notice before we could cancel the film from them, but that was the only agreement that we had made with them, or the only condition of the purchase. Q. The General Film Company had been doing business and had acquired a number of exchanges before you sold out to them in the Fall of 1910? A. We sold out to them in August, 1910, but we did not turn over the office until November, for the reason why, that we had not received our contracts up to that time. Q. The General Film Company had acquired a number of exchanges and was doing business, or had been doing