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)

Page scan 000128 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:
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 #:
000128
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.

2578 James B. Clark, Direct Examination. the conditions of the Motion Picture Patents Company license agreement would not be enforced? A. No, sir. Q. Were you given to understand that this license was merely a formality, and that if some violations of it should occur it would not be cancelled? A. No, sir. Q. Do you recall whether or not in the license granted your exchange by the Motion Picture Patents Company there was a provision against subrenting by the exhibitor? A. Yes, sir. Q. Were you in favor of that provision? A. Yes, sir. Q. Let me ask you this: Were you the manager, the active manager of your exchange, prior to entering into the Edison license agreement, and the Motion Picture Patents Company license agreement? A. No. Mr. Kowland was really the manager. I looked after the financial end of it. Q. Were you conversant with the details of the business? A. YTes, sir. Q. Did you keep yourself thoroughly posted regarding its progress from day to day? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you know whether or not there had been any complaints in the trade respecting subrenting on the part of the exhibitors? A. Yes, sir, there were. Q. Had your exchange had any experience in respect to subrenting on the part of exhibitors? A. Yes, sir, we had. Q. What was your experience in that respect? A. Well, we had trouble with the exhibitors at long distance, where we had long shipments, who would subrent the films to half a dozen other exhibitors before shipping them back to us. Q. Did that make any difference in your receipts and profits? A. Yes, sir, that was a loss to us. Q. Did that make any difference with respect to the condition of the film when returned to your exchange? A. Yes, sir. Q. What difference did it make in regard to that? A. The more it was used the worse its condition, and the older it got the lower the price would be for rental. Q. Did you favor, or were you opposed to the provision in the Patents Company license abolishing the practice of subrenting? A. I was in favor of it. Q. Do you recall when the practice for placing standing orders for film was adopted? A. I can't say that I know the exact time.