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 #:
000461
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.

J. Wesley, Rosenqubst, Direct Examination. 2911 that? A. From the Actograpk Company, from January 31st, 1909, to December 22nd, 1909. Q. Were the pictures that you were securing from the Actograph Company licensed pictures? A. Yes; they were what we called the "association" pictures at that time. I don't know whether they were licensed or not, now. Q. After you ceased to take service from the Actograph Company, from whom did you secure your program? A. •From the United Film Renting Company, from December 22nd, 1909, to February 1, 1910. Q. Did the United Film Renting Company deal in licensed or unlicensed pictures? A. The so-called independent pictures at that time. Q. At the time you left the Actograph Company and went to the United Film Renting Company, did you intend to change from the licensed to the independent service? A. Yes, sir, I did, for a reason. Q. Will you tell us what reason actuated you in making that change? Mr. Gbosvenor: Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial. The Witness: All of my competitors were using the "association" pictures, and I found I had to depart — not that I wanted to, but that I had to in order to get custom. The Union Square people, and people all over on the east side of 11th Street, were using the ''association'' pictures, and I frequently heard people come into the theatre and say, "We saw that at Union Square," or, "We saw it somewhere else," and I determined to change for my own benefit. Q. You found that the duplication of pictures in your immediate vicinity injured your business? A. Yes, sir. Q. And you wanted a distinct and different program? A. Yes, sir. Q. And when you left the Actograph Company, were you able to get a distinct and definite program? A. Yes, sir, from the Actograph Company? Q. When you left the Actograph Company, were yon able to get from the United Film Renting Company a distinct and definite program? A. Yes, sir. Q. Plow long did you say you continued to receive serv