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 000135 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 #:
000135
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.

James B. Clark, Direct Examination. 2585 can advertise now, and he gets his program when it is promised to him. Q. And do they advertise now? A. Yes, sir. Q. Is it a common practice for exhibitors to advertise a program some days in advance? A. Yes, sir. Q. Is that true of the exhibitors served by the independent exchanges as well as the exhibitors served by the licensed exchanges? A. Yes. Q. After the Pittsburgh Calcium Light Company sold its property to the General Film Company, did you remain in charge of the business for some little time? A. Yes, sir. Q. How long did you remain there? A. About three or four months. Q. Under what conditions did you manage the business for the General Film Company after the consummation of the sale, and by that I mean, were you restricted by definite orders from the home office or were you allowed to go ahead and transact business according to your own best judgment? A. I was alloAved to transact the business as I felt like it. They did not restrict me, except in bookkeeping methods. Of course, they have a system which changed our system of books. Q. Aside from that, you were permitted to order film and do business with the exhibitors? A. Yes, sir. Q. And to make prices according to your own best judgment? A. Yes, sir. Q. Were you ordered to take the film from all of the licensed manufacturers, or were you permitted to select such film as you saw fit? A. I was permitted to select what I wanted. Q. Were any directions or orders ever given to you not to take the motion pictures of certain manufacturers? A. No, sir. Q. Do you recall that in the Patents Company license there was a provision to the effect that an exchange should lease at least twenty-five hundred dollars' worth of motion pictures per month? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did that provision meet with your approval or disapproval? A. It met with my approval. Q. For what reason? A. Well, it was not possible to give a program on less film than that. It kept so many small exchanges from putting in part of a program, and so on, and made it easier for us to handle.