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 #:
000130
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.

31G2 Jeremiah J. Kennedy, Direct Examination. could obtain a reliable and impartial supply of motion pictures. The intention was to try this experiment in localities where these abuses were greatest, with a view of putting the exhibitor in a position to protect himself. Q. When did the General Film Company go into the exchange business? A. It opened its first exchange on or about June 6th, 1910. Q. Did the General Film Company engage in a fair competition with existing exchanges? A. It did, unquestionably. Q. Was there any price-cutting? A. There was not. In fact, that was one of the evils which the business had always been subject to and which it had never been free from. I refer to the. period prior to the General Film Company becomii)g a factor in the exchange business. Q. At the time of the organization of the General Film Company, did any of the licensed producers own rental exchanges? A. Yes. Several. Q. What was their position with regard to the formation of the General Film Company? Did they favor or oppose the proposition? A. They, with possibly one or two exceptions, opposed it. The others would not agree to sell to the General Film Company their stocks of motion pictures and auxiliaries until after they saw whether or not the experiment was likely to be able to take care of itself in the way of income. Two of the owners of such exchanges advised other exchanges — or the owners of other exchanges — to be very cautious with their dealing with the General Film Company. Mr. Grosvenor : I object to this statement as hearsay, and I move to strike it out. The Witness : For the reason that the General Film Company would x^vy probably be a failure, and they might not gel any price at which they agreed to sell. Those were the Vitagraph Company and Spoor. They did not deliver their exchanges or sell their exchanges or their exchange property to the General Film Company, until a later date. Mr. Lubin at first refused to sell or deliver the property of his exchange but afterwards did deliver it at an earlier date than either the Vitagraph Company or Mr. Spoor.