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 #:
000113
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. 2563 facturers all sold their film to the rental exchanges at the same price? A. Yes, sir. Q. Is it not also true of conditions since the Motion Picture Patents Company was formed, that the licensed manufacturers and the Patents Company have all leased or distributed their product at uniform prices? A. Yes, sir. Q. The prices being determined by so much per foot? A. Yes, sir. Q. And in the same way, the General Film Company, from the time you have been connected with it, has subleased or sub-rented the films of the different manufacturers according to the age of the film, and not according to the name of the maker or the character of the film? A. What do you mean with reference to various prices? Q. That is to say, if the General Film Company has had ten films made by ten different licensed manufacturers, all of the same age, it has sub-leased those ten films at the same price to the different exhibitors? A. Yes, sir. Q. On page 2341, Vol. IV, you gave certain testimony as to percentages of business done by the General Film Company. Have you prepared any memorandum or any figures or tables which serve as the basis for the testimony you gave? A. No, sir; only memorandums that I made at the office in determining that. Q. Have you prepared any memorandum at your office showing the number of theatres? A. No, sir, I have not any memorandum that was retained on that. Q. You have not preserved any memorandum? A. No, sir. Q. Do you know of any such memorandum in the offices of the General Film Company? A. No, sir; I do not. Q. Then these figures that you gave are merely your own estimate? A. Not entirely my own estimate. It was my conclusion based on the estimates of the branch managers. Q. Have you preserved any figures of any kind relating to any part of this territory, on this subject? A. No, sir. Q. You have not any figures, as to the relative or comparative number of the theatres in any section of this territory, over which you have supervision? A. No, sir; I have not. Q. Either as to the amount of business done by the dif