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 #:
000421
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.

Charles O. Baumann, Direct Examination. 2871 been operating independently in the way von have just described? A. 1912 up to the present time. Q. How many releases do you have at the present time? A. Including its subsidiary companies, six. In the aggregate, nine reels a week. Q. In other words, you release six subjects a week, which aggregate nine reels? A. Yes. Q. What are the subsidiary companies to which you refer? A. Broncho Film Company — Q. Will you name the releases as you name the companies? A. Broncho Film. Q. How many releases? A. Two reels, one release. Domino Motion Picture Company, one release, two reels; Kay-Bee brand of the New York Motion Picture Company, one release, two reels; Keystone Film Company, three releases, three reels. Q. To what person, firm or corporation does the New York Motion Picture Company now sell its motion pictures? A. Mutual Corporation. Mr. Grosvenor: Then, this nine reels a week is also included as part of the weekly output of the Mutual? The Witness: Yes. By Mr. Kingsley : Q. During the time that you have been connected with the companies that you have described, have you been conversant with the competition carried on by the General Film Company? A. Yes. Q. Have you come into contact with the General Film Company from time to time in the management of your business? A. No. Q. Have you been conversant with the methods employed by the General Film Company in the management of its business in the general field? A. No. Q. Did the General Film Company ever attempt to interfere with your business or with the business of the companies with which you are affiliated? A. No. Q. nave you any complaints to make against the Gen