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)

Page scan 000131 from 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 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 #:
000131
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 12, 2024
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. Kexnep > , Direct Examination. 3163 By Mr. Kingsley : Q. Were prices to exhibitors increased by the General Film Company? A. The average price was slightly less than formerly, although the prices were readjusted so as to be more uniform for the same class of service. We found that in many instances exchanges were favoring theatres by charging them a price which was so low as to involve a very serious loss, and such loss wTas made up by unjustifiably higher prices charged to other exhibitors whom they were able to control by threats or otherwise. Q. Would you say that the prices charged by the General Film Company to exhibitors after this equalization, were higher or lower, on the average? A. Lower. Q. Do you recall an occasion when you had some negotiations with one William Fox, a witness in this action, relative to the possible sale of the motion pictures, stock and equipment, of the Greater New York Film Rental Company? A. I do. Q. On the occasion of your conversation with William Fox, did you say to him in terms or in substance, that you had laid out a schedule of how much would be paid exchanges by the General Film Company? A. I did not. Q. On the occasion of your conversation with William Fox, relative to the possible sale of the motion pictures, stock and equipment of the Greater New York Film Rental Company, did you say to him, either in terms or in substance, that such a schedule existed, and that the schedule permitted you to pay him $89,000? A. I did not. Such a sum was not mentioned, furthermore. Q. Do you recall that at the time you were negotiating with William Fox for the sale of the motion pictures, stock and equipment of the Greater New York Film Rental Company, that after you had agreed with him upon terms, you called up Mr. Marvin with regard to suspension of cancellation of Fox's license? A. That was at a later date, yes. Q. Did you say to Mr. Marvin on the occasion in question, either in terms or in substance, that you did not want such a situation as in the case of Marcus Loew? A. I never made such a statement or request. Q. Did you say to Fox on the occasion when you had agreed with him as to the purchase of the motion pictures, stock and equipment of the Greater New York Film Rental