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 000480 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 #:
000480
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.

2330 Fred C. Aiken, Direct Examination. representative of the General Film Company? A. Why, it was some time in 1911. I think it was in September. Q. Prior to September, 1911, were yon in the film exchange business at all? A. Yes, sir. Q. And what was the name of your company? A. Theatre Film Service Company. Q. Did that company sell out to the General Film Company? A. It did. Q. When? A. It was in June, 1910. Q. Now, then, from June, 1910, up to September, 1911, what did you do? A. I was branch manager for the General Film Company in Chicago. Q. How long iiad this Theatre Film Service Company been in existence prior to the time when it sold to the General Film Company? A. We were incorporated in January, 1907. Q. And what connection did you have in the company at that time? A. When we were incorporated, I was vicepresident, and a year later I was president. President and general manager. Q. And at the time that you were vice-president, were you also general manager? A. Yes, sir. Q. So, from 1907 up to 1910, when you sold to the General Film Company, you were the manager of the Theatre Film Service Company in Chicago? A. Yes. Q. Was that company a so-called Edison licensee during the year 1908? A. Yes, sir. Q. And did it afterwards take out a license from the Motion Picture Patents Company? A. Yes, sir. Q. About when did it take a license from the Patents Company? A. We received a license — I think it was January 19th, 1909. Q. Will you state the conditions prevailing in the film rental business in Chicago and surrounding territory during the year 1907, and prior to the formation of the Film Service Association? A. Well, the conditions were what I would call very bad. Q. In what way were they bad? A. Well, in the first place, there was really illegitimate competition. Sub-renting was the main bad feature, and promises that were beingmade by different exchanges to secure business, which they could not fulfill, or did not fulfill.