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 #:
000138
Language:
English
Collection:
Early Cinema and Government & Law
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.

2588 James B. Clark, Direct Examination. Q. What was the value of the film which you sent back to the manufacturers on the seventh month after signing the Patents Company license? A. Practically nothing. Q. What was it called in the trade at that time? A. What was it called? Q. Yes, what was it called in the trade at that time? A. Junk. Q. Was there anything in the license which your exchange signed with the Patents Company, to prevent it from accumulating a library if you saw fit? A. No, sir. Q. What has been your experience with respect to deterioration or wearing out of film in active use? A. Well, it varies very much. Q. What would you say is the average life of film in active use? By that I mean the average physical life? A. About one hundred or one hundred and twenty days. Something like that. But it varies. Q. What would you say as to whether film having an average use for six or seven months, is fit for further use? A. No use. Q. You say it is not fit for further use? A. No, sir; it is not fit for further use. Q. Why not? A. Well, the sprocket holes which carry it through the machine are usually in bad condition, and it is usually so scratched from the oil and dust of the machine, that it is not fit to be shown. It becomes badly scratched by the machine, in use. Q. Do you consider that the exhibition of old, worn, scratched and practically obsolete film is a good thing for the business? A. I think it is a bad thing for the business. Q. Did your exchange lose anything because of the provision requiring the return of old, worn-out film at the expiration of six months? A. No, sir. Q. Do you know whether or not in 1907 and 1908 it was a frequent occurrence for an exhibitor to get service from two exchanges at the same time? A. I don't think so. Not from our exchange. Q. Did you discourage the practice at that time? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you have, prior to the formation of the General Film Company, any difficulty with respect to conflicting