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)

Page scan 000430 from 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 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 #:
000430
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 12, 2024
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.

2880 Charles O. Baumann, Direct Examination. 3 By Mr. Kingsley : Q. Going back to the time when the Motion Picture Distributing & Sales Company was supplying unlicensed exchanges throughout the country, did you have any rule with regard to shipment of motion pictures to exchanges? A. Yes. Q. What was that rule? A. C. O. D. Q. Did you enforce that rule consistently? A. Yes. Mr. Grosvenor: I make the same objection to all this line of examination. By Mr. Kingsley: Q. What was the reason of this rule of shipping motion pictures C. O. D. to the exchanges? Mr. Grosvenor: Of what period are you speaking? The Witness : 1910, up to the present time. Up to 1912. By Mr. Kingsley: Q. By that you mean, during the whole life of the Motion Picture Distributing & Sales Company — A. Yes. Q, This rule of shipping C. O. D. to the exchanges was enforced? A. Yes. Q, What was the reason for that rule? A. Because it was only a five thousand dollar corporation, organized for the purpose of protection of manufacturers' accounts, together with the taking care of the litigation, collected from all of the different manufacturers, and the reason for the C. O. D's was to reimburse all of the manufacturers, as well as taking care of the litigation, patent litigation, and if it were not for the fact that if was sent out C. O. D., they probably never could have collected their money, or half of it. Q. Why couldn't they? A. Irresponsible people in buying. Concerns, T should say. Q. So that one of the reasons, and probably the principal reason, for your enforcing the rule of shipping motion pictures C. O. D. to the exchanges was the fact that you