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 #:
000569
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.

II. M. Nbwsomb, Direct Examination. 3011 Q. You did agree you would not cut prices? A. Yes, * sir. Q. And the prices which had already been cut below the normal, were they restored to their former level after the consolidation? A. Probably in some cases, not in every case. Q. Then the only competition between the two companies after the consolidation consisted of the getting of new business? A. Yes, sir, and the independent business. Q. Was it known, outside of the parties immediately interested, that there had been a consolidation? A. Xo. Q. Did you make any effort to keep that secret? A. Yes, sir. All we had to do was to keep our mouths shut. Q. Did you have any competition from any other licensed exchange? A. Yres, sir. Q. What exchange was that? A. Mitchell of Memphis, and Pierce of New Orleans. Q. From which one of those two sources was the competition the strongest, Xew Orleans or Memphis? A. I believe Memphis was the strongest, and we also had the independent exchanges to compete with. Q. What was the name of the Memphis exchange? A. 3 The Mitchell Film Exchange, I believe, is the way he operated it. Q. And was that exchange owned or operated by a man by the name of Mitchell? A. Yes, sir. Q. What did that exchange do in your territory either before or after your consolidation in the way of competition with you? A. Before and after, Mitchell cut the prices. He even came into Birmingham, and got business, and put his whole output in one theatre there. He was buying the licensed output, or reels, and he came into Birmingham and got a customer there, and put his whole out 4 put in one theatre. Q. The Mitchell exchange was subsequently sold to the General Film Company, was it not? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you recall about the time of the sale? A. I think it was in August, 1910. Q. This price cutting that you have just spoken of on the part of the Mitchell Film Exchange, was that before or after the sale to the General Film Company? A. It was before.