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 #:
000342
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.

2792 Cornelius D. Struble, Direct Examination. no way of knowing, and we never knew for certain when an exhibitor's royalties were not paid and when they were. Q. Did the change in the rule relieve the situation in this respect? A. Yes, sir, it did. We knew when the exhibitor's royalty was paid when we collected it ourselves. Q. At the time that you were in charge of the Monarch Film Exchange, did you find that the producers of licensed motion pictures were competing with one another? A. We did. WTe were not buying the entire output of the licensed manufacturers, and we were continually being solicited from manufacturers we didn't buy from to take their films. Q. Did you find that they were also competing with one another with respect to the exhibitors as well as with respect to the exchanges? A. They were continuously advertising to the exhibitors both through the newspapers and through personal letters, telling them to ask for their brand of film. Q. Has that been the situation since you have been in the film business? A. You mean during the entire period that I have been in the business? Q. Yes. A. Well, to a large extent, yes. Q. Are you still in the motion picture business? A. I am. Q. What are you doing at the present time? A. I am with the General Film Company's Kansas City branch. Q. How long have you been with the Kansas City branch of the General Film Company? A. Since February, 1912. Q. What position do you occupy with the Kansas City branch? A. Assistant manager. Q. Do you find at the present time that the producers of licensed motion pictures are competing with one another? A. They are, I believe; that is, they appear to be. Q. Do they urge upon your exchange the desirability of their productions? A. They are constantly writing us to buy more of their brands of films, and those whose films we are not buying are continually soliciting us to take their releases. Q. Is your exchange permitted to select the motion pictures that it deems desirable for its customers? A. We are.