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 000574 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 #:
000574
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.

2424 Elmer R. Pearson, Cross Examination. Q. In 1907 was the price of motion pictures to exhibitors governed by the age, as it is now? A. Yes, sir. Q. And has that been the rule in the business since you have been in it? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you know anything about a similar rule prevailing among the unlicensed producers of motion pictures? A. In conversation it is generally expressed that way, that they put prices on certain ages of film. Q. So that the age of the film, since you have been in business, has been the basis of its price? A. Yes, sir. Q. And it is the basis of its price among the unlicensed producers of motion pictures? A. Yes, sir. Q. In placing orders for your branch, do you use your own best judgment? A. Yes, sir. Q. And without any instructions or directions from the home office? A. No, I receive no directions whatever. Recross examination by Mr. Grosvenor: Q. Mr. Preller, where were you doing business in 1907? A. In Pittsburgh, for the Pittsburgh Calcium Light & Film Company. Q. Were you handling the Edison and Biograph makes there? A. Yes, sir. Q. There were a number of exchanges that were handling those makes in competition with you at that time and in the year 1908? A. The time that I was connected with the Pittsburgh Calcium Light as correspondence clerk was about the time that the manufacturers got together, you know, and were known as licensed manufacturers, so I am not prepared to state anything previous to that time. Q. Were there not a number of exchanges competing with the Pittsburgh Calcium Light Company? A. Yes, sir, there were two. Thereupon, ELMER R. PEARSON resumed the stand. ('i-oss examination continued by Mi*. Grosvenor: Q. Witness, you have returned to produce a memorandum, and you have handed me a slip of paper? A. Yes, sir.