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 #:
000486
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.

2336 Fred C. Aiken, Direct Examination. 1 out circulars of their films to your customers, the exhibitors? A. Yes, sir, they did. Q. To what extent? A. Well, to a very great extent. They made it a practice of sending their literature and giving the release date to practically all exhibitors. Q. Did they send out advance notices of every release that they turned out? A. They did. Q. Do you remember seeing their advertisement in the newspapers or papers devoted to the motion picture art? A. Trade papers, yes, sir. Q. Can you state whether or not that competition continued after the formation of the Motion Picture Patents Company? A. It did. Q. And in what ways did you observe it? A. In practically the same way that it was before. Their advertisements continued to appear long before the release dates, and circulars and printed matter describing the various subjects were sent out before the release date, not only to the exchanges, but also to the exhibitors. Q. You have stated that you sold your exchange business in 1910 to the General Film Company. Will you please o state the circumstances leading up to that sale? A. I met Mr. George Kleine at lunch, one day, in Chicago, shortly after it was rumored that he had sold his exchanges to the General Film Company, and the matter was brought up, and I indicated interest in having a proposition, and we made an appointment for either the next day or the second day, I am not sure, after that — at 10 o'clock in the morning, at his office. And, on keeping that appointment, I was made a proposition, which I accepted. Q. Did Mr. Kleine or anyone else connected with the General Film Company or anyone connected with the Pat4 ents Company, ever intimate to you that if you did not sell, your license might be cancelled? Mr. Grosvenor: Objected to as leading in form. The Witness: No, sir, they did not. By Mr. Caldwell: Q. Was any threat of that kind made by anybody at any time? A. No, sir, there was not.