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 000205 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 #:
000205
Language:
English
Collection:
Early Cinema and Government & Law
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, Cross Examination. 3233 duces three regular short subjects every week, and in addition, it produces one or more, sometimes only a fraction of one long subject of unusual expense and merit. Q. Is there any competition as to price in the distribution of these regular releases of which you say you produce three a week, between yourself, that is, the Biograph Company, and the other licensed producers? A. Not that I know of. We all sell at the lowest price we can. Q. And the lowest price at whicli you can sell them to the General Film Company is fixed by your license? A. Yes. Q. So you don't mean to say, in saying that you sell at the lowest price you can, that there is competition between the ten different licensed producers in the fixing of that lowest price? A. I mean to say if we sold at the higher price, we would have no business. We have a perfect right to sell at any price we please. The present prices frequently involve very serious loss. But we have to stand that or go out of the business, so in that way there is competition. Q. The price at which you distribute these reels to the General Film Company, that is, the regular releases, is the same as the price at which the other nine licensed producers distribute their regular releases to the General Film Company? A. Yes. It is the highest price the General Film Company will pay. Q. When did you ever purchase exchange property from an exchange that was unlicensed? A. I don't know the exact time. I think I can get it from the record. Q. Look at page 3195 of your testimony. A. I understood your question to refer to the date. Q. "Q. Was it necessary for a rental exchange, purchased by the General Film Company, to have a license at the time of the purchase? A. No. We purchased exchange property from an exchange that was unlicensed.'' A. We did. Q. In what cases? A. We purchased the exchange property formerly owned by the S. Nye Bass Film Exchange in New Orleans. Q Do you know of any other case? A. No. Q. Had that S. Nye Bass Company been a licensed exchange? A. Yes.