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 000542 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 #:
000542
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.

2392 Philip J. Scheck, Direct Examination. Virginia, the District of Columbia, Baltimore, and Maryland, and the surrounding country. Q. Did that company become a so-called Edison licensee in the year 1908? A. Yes, sir. Q. And was it a member of the Film Service Association? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did it subsequently take out a license from the Motion Picture Patents Company? A. Yes, sir. Q. And how long did it continue in business as a Patents Company licensed exchange? A. To the year of 1910. Q. Up to what time or about what time in 1910? A. About October. Some time in October. Q. Xow, during the years 1907 and 1908, and up to the time your company became a licensee of the Motion Picture Patents Company, did you have any trouble in your territory on the score of sub-renting? A. Yes, sir. Q. Was that quite general in your territory? A. Yes, sir. It was not so much generally in the cities as it was in the counties and in the smaller towns. There is where we had the most trouble. In the city we could call after our film, and, as far as we were concerned, we generally would have to go after our films. The customer would not bring them in to us, even in our own city, and whenever they got out of the city, we would have to just whistle half of the time and wait for them. Q. How many reels a week was your exchange taking in December 1908, just prior to the time when you became a Patents Company licensee? A. About seven. Six or seven. Q. And that cost you about how much per week? A. About seven hundred dollars. Q. Did you consider that at that time an exchange could do business if it leased less than twenty-five hundred dollars worth of film per month? A. No, sir. Q. Was your exchange regarded, at that time, as a large one, or a small one? A. A small one. Q. You are familiar with the requirements in the Motion Picture Patents Company license, that films shall be returned after the expiration of seven months? A. Yes, sir. Q. At the time yon signed that license, about how many reels did you have on hand? A. About five hundred. Q. Between that time and September, 1909, had you added considerably to vour stock of films? A. Only to the extent