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 #:
000496
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.

2912 Warren I*. Palmer, Direct Examination. Q. What position did you have with that company? A. President and Treasurer. Q. Who else was interested with you in that business? A. Mr. R. M. Mock was General Manager and Secretary. Q. When you first started the business, were you a licensed or unlicensed exchange? A. Unlicensed. Q. About what time did you receive a license from the Patents Company? A. I believe in October, 1909. Q. Did I understand you to say that you commenced in November, 1909? Commenced business in November, 1909? A. We got our license in October, but we did not commence buying film until November. Q. Now you are speaking of your business as a licensed exchange? A. As a licensed exchange. Q. When did you commence business as an exchange, but dealing in unlicensed pictures? A. I do not recall, but I think it was — the early part of 1908. Q. State to the best of your recollection and belief, Mr. Palmer, about when you commenced the film exchange business as an unlicensed exchange. A. It was in April, 1908, I believe. Q. And you were licensed in October, 1909, by the Patents Company? A. By the Patents Company. Mr. Grosvenor: I object to this questioning as misleading, as it appears there were no licenses issued in April, 1908, and therefore, there was no such distinction at that time as licensed and unlicensed exchanges. By Mr. Caldwell: Q. During the year 1908 was your exchange one of the so-called Edison licensed exchanges? A. No, it was not. Q. Who were your competitors after you became a licensed exchange in October, 1909, and thereafter, during the year 1909, and in the year 1910? A. The Motion Picture Service Company of Syracuse; Pittsburg Calcium Light & Supply Company of Rochester, New York; Buffalo Film Exchange, Buffalo. Q. And in what territory generally was your exchange