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 #:
000129
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.

Jeremiah J. Kennedy, Direct Examination. 3161 for their service, and were not able to go to other exchanges and obtain even other service at a higher price. Such exhibitors were obliged to accept just what the exchange gave them, and were unable to make any change, for the reason that none of the other exchanges would serve them except at a higher price. These companies had also deposits to be forfeited in the event of their violating any of the conditions agreed upon, and also had by-laws or agreements which provided for fines or other punishment for violation. Many exhibitors appealed for protection from these conditions. The question of the price never appeared to be an important question. Most of the exhibitors whom I have met were willing to pay a higher price, and stated that they could afford to pay a higher price for a good reliable film service, for a supply of motion pictures which they could advertise. For protection against exchanges conniving with their competitors to break up their programs whenever they did advertise subjects. That was another abuse which had become very common. Now, one great demand of the exhibitor seemed to be a reliable and impartial supply of motion pictures, the motion pictures which were necessary for the existence of his business, and after serious consideration had been given by the different producers at different times to these conditions, which were ruinous not only to the exhibitor, but also to the exchanges as well as the producers, resulted in my making the suggestion that as the exhibitor wanted only a reliable and proper supply of motion pictures, the logical thing to tto was to experiment with the providing of such a supply. If that was found to be the proper solution, that would end it; if not, they would have to look further. Q. Did the majority of the licensed producers of motion pictures express an opinion in conversation with you, as to whether the General Film Company would be profitable or unprofitable to them? A. Yes. They were very much opposed to it, claiming it could not possibly earn enough to pay its expenses, that their business was likely to be seriously injured by antagonism on the part of exchanges. Q. Have you already sufficiently indicated what it was intended to accomplish by the formation and operation of the General Film Company? A. Well, the object was very simple. It was to provide a means whereby the exhibitor