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 000384 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 #:
000384
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.

2234 Ike Van Ronkel, Direct Examination. We still kept our name. We could have gone into business. Q. Was there any agreement between you and the General Film Company, express or implied, that you should not go into the exchange business? A. Nobody asked me anything like that. I would not have sold out under those conditions. Q. You were aware of the clause in the license agreement that permitted the Patents Company to cancel your license on fourteen days' notice, without cause? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did that have any effect on your mind in determining whether or not you would sell? A. No, sir. As long as I ran business on business principles, there was no danger of their cancelling my license. Q. Suppose you had been cancelled, was the supply of pictures turned out by the Universal and Mutual and others sufficient to enable you to go into the exchange business? A. We could have went in the next day, sir. Several of them did go in after that, and are still in. Q. At the time you sold, can you state how many independent exchanges were operating in Chicago in that territory? A. I should judge, about ten or twelve. Q. Had the General Film Company commenced operations in your territory at the time you sold? A. Yes, sir; there was an office there. Q. Did that fact have anything to do with the sale? A. If they had all been run like that one, I would have stayed in the business myself. That was the cleanest competitor we had. Q. What is the territory supplied by the three branches of the General Film Company operating in Chicago? AWe cover the City of Chicago, of course, Cook County, and down the State as far as Springfield. We do not go into Springfield. Q. Where is Springfield served from? A. From the St. Louis branch. We supply a small portion of Indiana, a small portion of Iowa, up the peninsula of Michigan. Q. And do you supply any part of Ohio? A. No, sir. Q. What part of Michigan do you supply? A. The upper pen insula. Q. Are you familiar with the territory supplied by the Detroit branch of the General Film Company? A. Yes, sir.