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)

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 #:
000483
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:
July 25, 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.

Fred C. Aiken, Direct Examination. '2:\'X\ chase at least $1,200 per month of film. Do you recall that? * A. Yes, I do. Q. Now, did you know who it was that made that provision in their by-laws? A. That was made by the Executive Committee, and approved by the members, themselves. Q. Did the manufacturers have anything to do in the imposition of that requirement? A. No, sir, they did not. Q. Do you recall when the release day rule first went into effect? A. I do not recall exactly the date; no, sir. Q. The Edison Exchange license agreement required that film be returned after six months. Do you recall that? A. I do. 2 Q. Do you know whether that was favored by the exchanges or not, at that time? A. I think it was. Q. Did you favor it? A. I did. Q. Why? A. For the simple reason that personally, so far as our company was concerned, we figured that we would have a sufficient amount of film by returning film as indicated, and it would also take off from the market, the old, worn out, scratched film; in other words, it would place us in a position to supply a cleaner program to a theatre, and in those days we were doing everything that we pos o sibly could to assist the theatre to make a success and prolong the business. Q. A similar provision was contained in the Patents Company license, wasn't it? A. Yes, sir. Q. How much film did you have on hand at the time you signed the Patents Company license? A. I think we had about thirteen or fourteen hundred reels. When I say reels, I mean approximately, a thousand feet to a reel. Q. What was the condition of that film? A. Some of it was very bad; practically useless. Q. The film that you had on hand, as a rule, that you 4 had acquired six months or more before, was that film of any value? A. Some of it was in very good condition, and subjects that were very good, but the majority of it really was not fit to be used. Q. When did you commence to make returns of films under the Patents Company license, for the first time? A. I am not sure, but it seems to me that it was in the Fall of 1909. Q. Were you required to make any return of film before you got a Patents Company license? A. No, sir.