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 #:
000140
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.

2590 James B. Clark, Direct Examination. By Mr. Kingsley: Q. Answer. A. Well, the principal trouble was, if a man did not pay up, we had no way of telling whether he was paid or not. Q. That is, you might go on and serve an exhibitor who had not paid his royalty? A. Yes, sir; without knowing it. Q. He might even tell you he had paid it, when, as a matter of fact, he had not? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did that sometimes occur to you? A. It did. Q. Did it occur with sufficient frequency to become an 2 noying? A. It did. Q. What suggestion or recommendation did you make to the Patents Company, if any, with respect to this practice? A. I recommended that they allow us to collect the royalties. Then we would know who was paid and who was not. Q. And did the Patents Company subsequently allow the exchanges to collect the royalties? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did the trouble which you have mentioned, then cease? A. Yes, sir. Q. Was there anything in the license agreement which your exchange signed with the Motion Picture Patents Com 3 pany, wThich restricted you in a geographical sense as to the territory you might serve? A. No, sir. Q. Prior to the sale of the property of your exchange, to the General Film Company, what territory did you serve? A. Well, we served quite a big territory, because we were as far west as Omaha. You see we had branch offices. Q. What territory did you serve from the Pittsburgh office? A. Principally Western Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia. That is, Eastern Ohio. Q. And did you find it necessary, when you wished to serve points at a further distance, to open new exchanges? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you find that there was a geographical limit beyond which it was not profitable to ship films physically? A. Yes, sir; that is the reason we opened the branch offices. Q. Was your exchange, at any time, prohibited by any condition in the license agreement with the Motion Picture Patents Company, from taking on a licensed exhibitor who might have been served by another licensed exchange at another time? A. No, sir.