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 #:
000498
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.

2911 Warren R. Palmer, Direct Examination. great deal of price-cutting at all times. That is the way we got customers. Q. What methods did you resort to in order to get each other's customers, if any? A. Either offer them better service for the same amount of money, or the same service for less. Q. Did it ever happen that you, in order to get a customer away from a competitor, offered him service at a loss? Mr. Grosvenor: Objected to as leading in form and improper. The Witness: That is a very hard question to answer, because there was no set price on the service. By Mr. Caldwell: Q. But in any event, it is a fact that there was a great deal of price-cutting between those exchanges? Mr. Grosvenor: I object to that as leading in form and assuming something that the witness has not testified to. Mr. Caldwell: He has already testified that there was price-cutting. The Witness : Yes, there was. By Mr. Caldwell : Q. Well, did that price-cutting result in those exchanges doing anything as between themselves? And if so, what? A. It resulted in a working agreement amongst us not to take customers from each other except at an advanced price of ten per cent. Q. Did it result in anything else? A. Finally, this plan did not work out to our satisfaction, and in April of 1910, we formed a trusteeship. We appointed a Trustee to receive the gross amounts received from film rental each week. We signed each other's vouchers on the Trustee to pay an amount sufficient to pay the film bills for each week, each exchange, and the residue was divided amongst us equally.