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 #:
000112
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.

2 2562 Fred C. Aiken, Cross Examination. hirers were all interested in the General Film Company? A. Yes, sir. Q. I read you further questions and answers from the record in the case of the Greater New York Film Rental Company against the Biograph Company and others, at page 3441, as follows : "Q. Didn't you feel at that time that with the manufacturers interested in this General Film Company, and feeling from your own deductions, as you stated, that you were reasonably certain that the manufacturers were interested in the General Film Company, and feeling that the General Film Company was coining to Chicago, didn't you then feel that with the resources of the General Film Company, controlled as it was by the manufacturers, that if it came into your market as one of your open competitors, it would be able to offer better inducements to the exhibitor than you could offer? A. I fully realized there would be severe competition. "Q. And you fully realized that in conduct of that kind, the advantage would be entirely with the General Film Company, did you not? A. I did. ui.l And wasn't that one of the causes that induced you to sell your exchange? A. It had entered into it, as I stated before. "Q. And didn't you feel at that time, taking that into consideration, that with the keen competition that would then result, the value of your exchange would be greatly reduced, and that you might be threatened with extinction as a film rental agency? A. I realized that the value of the exchange would be reduced with that competition. "Q. And didn't you feel that the competition would be so keen that it might threaten the very existence of your exchange? A. Yes, sir. "Q. And wasn't that one of the reasons why you felt you had better take your price and sell out? A. As I have stated before, that is one of the reasons that entered into it." Did you so testify in that suit? A. I did. (}. Mr. Aiken, you have testified somewhat on direct examination regarding the competition between the various manufacturers who were Edison licensees in the year 1908. Is it not a fact that those Edison licensee manu