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 000166 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 #:
000166
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.

3198 Jeremiah J. Kennedy, Direct Examination. earning power of a film or motion picture was at that time and is now, to a very large extent, based upon its age, every day's time that a motion picture was in the possession of a transportation company was just that much money lost. If the business had been properly conducted, instead of being in transit, it would be in service, thereby rendering another motion picture unnecessary. This large expense naturally had to be borne by either the exhibitor or by the exchange losing money or making no profit. The General Film Company at its start, impressed upon its representatives in charge of its different depots or branch offices, the fact that their service to exhibitors must be absolutely impartial and impersonal, and that a branch manager who failed to satisfy the exhibitors in the territory immediately tributary to his exchange, would be dismissed. The result wTas that the quantity of film — motion pictures — required to supply the same number of customers, or even a larger number, was reduced to between fifty and fifty-five per cent, of the quantity formerly required, while at the same time the General .Film Company kept every contract and obligation that it made with every exhibitor. Formerly, with approximately twice the quantity of motion pictures, exchanges complained that they were unable to keep their agreements with the exhibitors. I may specifically refer to the case of the Biograph Company, of which I am President, and whicli had a regular output varying from ninety-seven on one day and ninety-nine, to one hundred and nineteen and one hundred and twenty copies. The output very quickly dropped to fifty-seven copies, and yet the Biograph make was as popular as any other make in motion pictures. Economies were effected in other lines, and all the figures that show as profits on the books of the General Film Company are not profits as profits are ordinarily understood, but are economies, and if the business were conducted on the same old lines, the profits would be very much greater, but the filling of all contract obligations and promises, of course, increased the cost relatively — to a relatively higher figure — than on the old basis. Another point or object of the General Film Company, and which it accomplished, was the placing of more motion pictures in the territory which did not contain enough very high-class theatres to justify a separate exchange making such large leases. Take, for instance, At