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 (1914)

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:
1914
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 5
Leaf #:
000111
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 21, 2023
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, Cross Examination. 2561 of the opinion that the publication of the proceedings would be detrimental to the administration of justice in this case we would refrain from presenting same, notwithstanding the fact that THE SHOW WORLD is first on the news stands, and this matter was a clear "scoop," of such interest to the moving picture industry, amongst whom our circulation was large. By Mr. Grosvenor : Q. Mr. Aiken, you sold out to the General Film Company in June, 1910? A. Yes, sir. Q. I read to you certain questions and answers from the record in the case of the Greater Xew York Film Rental Company against the Biograph Company and General Film Company, purporting to be questions and answers given by you on examination in that case, page 3117 : "Q. At the time this offer was made to you by Mr. Kleine, your exchange was doing quite a good business, wasn't it? A. It was doing fairly well. "Q. It was a paying business? A. Yes, sir. "Q. You were making a nice income out of it? A. Yes, sir "Q. And making a comfortable living out of it? A. Yes, sir. "Q. And you had been ever since you were in the film rental business, hadn't you? A. Yes, sir." Did you so testify in that suit? A. I did. Q. Before you sold out to the General Film Company, that company had acquired a number of rental exchanges in the United States? A. I think they had acquired the Kleine Optical Company's exchanges. Q. And the Kleine Optical Company had an exchange in Chicago? A. Yes, sir. Q. You knew, then, that the General Film Company had already entered upon the business in competition with your company at the time you sold out? A. I thought so from what I had read. Q. Well, you knew, then, if they had not already entered, they were going to enter into the field in the near future? A. That is what I understand, yes. Q. And vou knew that the various licensed manufac