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 6
Leaf #:
000128
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.

3160 Jeremiah J. Kennedy, Direct Examination. principal reasons for forming the General Film Company? A. Well, the conditions which led up to the experiment of the General Film Company were many, and as I have said before, covered the whole period of my connection with the motion picture business. A few of the reasons were the fact that many exchanges used the motion pictures which they handled as a lever or a power to force unfair business conditions, or to crush or to control exhibitors by forcing, in some cases, the exhibitors to pay them a part of their receipts or profits. In other cases, exhibitors were threatened with extinction if they did not take service from exchanges. In other cases exchanges owned theatres which they supplied — to which they gave the preference in the supply of motion pictures. The number of exchanges throughout the country, which were interested in, or which owned or controlled theatres, was such as to enable other exchanges to force exhibitors to deal with them, to submit to unfair treatment under threat of establishing similar competition by opening theatres in competition with the exhibitors whom they threatened. In many cases, the exchanges were financially irresponsible. All the producers had suffered large losses through failure of the exchanges to pay their bills, in fact, it was common understanding in the business that sooner or later the last two or three weeks' bill of each exchange would be a loss. This and other abuses resulted in numerous complaints to the producers and to the Motion Picture Patents Company, and a request for some relief or protection in some form. Man}7 of the exhibitors suggested as a protection, the adoption of a price schedule. Others suggested a classification of motion pictures. Other suggestions were made with the object of compelling exchanges to live up to their agreements with the theatres. Other suggestions were made with a view to obtaining protection from the crushing power of certain combinations that had been made, notably, those at Rochester, New York, New York City and Chicago, which combinations had for their object the preventing of any of their members from serving or agreeing to serve a customer supplied by another member except at an advance of ten per cent, or more over the preceding price. In many cases exhibitors were paying all they could pay