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 #:
000375
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.

Max Milder, Direct Examination. 2825 to the terms of the license agreement which had been can * celled? Mr. Gbosvenoe: Objected to, as leading. The Witness: Yes, sir. By Mr. Kingsley: Q. Were the licensed motion pictures in the stock of the Lake Shore Film Exchange which had been obtained front the producers of licensed motion pictures under the terms 2 of the exchange license agreement shipped back to the producers of motion pictures? A. Not to my knowledge. Q. After the cancellation of the license? A. No, sir. Q. After leaving the Lake Shore Film Exchange where did you go? A. I went on the road for the General Film Company at Columbus. Q. How long did you remain on the road for the General Film Company at Columbus? A. Almost a year. Q. What territory did you cover at that time? A. Oh, a part of Indiana and a part of West Virginia. Q. Did you find competition at that time in the field 3 where you were travelling? A. Yes, sir. Q. On the part of the unlicensed exchanges? A. You bet. * Q. What was the situation in that field with respect to the unlicensed exchanges offering complete programs of unlicensed pictures to the exhibitors? A. They offered complete programs to exhibitors in towns where they had their service upon the same basis that we were offering our programs in towns where we were not doing business. Q. Did they have theatres to which they were supplying complete programs? A. I have never been in a town 4 that they didn't have a town in the same field. Q. Did they take away any business from the General Film Company at that time? A. Not only at that time, but they do it today. Q. Did you, on your part, take away some business* from them? A. Yes, sir; we tried to take all we could from them, and they tried to do likewise with our business. Q. When was it you went to New Orleans? A. T left, I