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 #:
000177
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. 3205 programs, they may stifle each other's business? A. Where the programs are different, the patronage of each is very much greater. More patrons are drawn to the locality in which both theatres are located, whereas if the programs are the same, each kills the other; in fact, the same amount of patronage may be said to be divided between two theatres to the injury of both. Q. Is it a fact, nevertheless, that in spite of the various causes which enter into an exhibitor's selection of his program, that more copies of a popular make are leased than those of a less popular make? A. Yes. The exhibitors demand of their exchange a relatively larger percentage of the more popular subjects, or more popular make, and this in turn creates a demand for such production to the benefit of the producer. Q. In your experience as a producer of motion pictures, have you ever made any picture or pictures, the first cost of which was so great that you knew you could not get a satisfactory direct return, but did so for the purpose of stimulating the business and increasing the popularity of your own productions generally? A. It has been a common practice amongst the licensed manufacturers, with whose work I am familiar, to produce at times pictures of such merit and cost, that the volume of business cannot possibly bring them back their direct expenses in producing such pictures. They do this for the purpose of maintaining the reputation of their make of pictures, and to keep their general average as high as possible in the estimation of the exchanges and the exhibitors. Q. And they go still further than that, do they not, and also seek the approval of the public itself? A. Yes. They do that in various ways, such as by extensive advertising, and in every way possible. Q. Do you recall having had negotiations on behalf of the General Film Company with one Warren R. Palmer, for the purchase of the motion pictures, stock and supply of the Motion Picture Supply Company? A. I had negotiations with him, and with his associate or partner, named Mock. Q. Do you recall what arrangements were made for the payment of the moneys which the General Film Company agreed to pay for the property bought? A. The price was agreed upon, and the form of contract was went to Mi-.