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 000167 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 #:
000167
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. Kennedy, Direct Examination. 3199 lanta and that section of the country, the number of motion pictures which the business justified an exchange In leasing was very small. At the same time, there were a number of very important houses which required a very much higher class of service than could be supplied with the fewer number of motion pictures or the small number of motion pictures which the exchanges were able to supply, and exist. The General 'Film Company was able to remedy those conditions, and, if necessary, stand a loss while the business in such sections was being developed. By Mr. Kingsley: Q. You have told us of the experience of the Biograph Company in the curtailment of its production because of the more efficient distribution of the General Film Company. Do you know whether other producers had a similar experience or not? A. They all complained to me about this reduction, and stated their reductions to be substantially the same as the reductions sustained by the Biograph Company. Q. Do you know, Mr. Kennedy, whether or not the profits which the Biograph Company has received from the General Film Company, have made good the curtailment of production which was caused by the more efficient distribution of the General Film Company? Mr. Grosvenor: I object to the use ot the term "more efficient distribution," the same being a con elusion of the counsel addressing the question to the witness. The Witness: The profits paid to the Biograph Company, together with profits earned and not paid, amount to less than two-thirds of the shrinkage sustained by the Biograph Company. Mr. Grosvenor: You mean by "the profits earned but not paid," the Biograph Company's pro rata share of the earnings of the General Film Company? The Witness: I do. A