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 #:
000225
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.

Harry N. Marvin, Direct Examination. 3253 Q. Are these the same throughout the United States? A. They are. Q. Have any attempts been made, either by the Motion Picture Patents Company or the licensed producers, or both, to regulate the subleasing prices of the rental exchanges to exhibitors? A. None whatever. Q. Did the Motion Picture Patents Company refuse to license any established manufacturer or any importer of desirable motion pictures at the time of its organization? A. It did not. Q. It is charged in the petition in this action that defendants, through the Patents Company, were enabled to, and did determine whether new motion picture theatres should or should not be opened, and whether old ones should be closed, although defendants had no proprietary interest in such theatres, Is it a fact that defendants exercised any such power? A. No. The defendants never interfered nor attempted to interfere in any manner with the opening or closing of any theatre. Q. Did the defendants set out to monopolize the business of all of the licensed rental exchanges in the United States? A. They did not. Q. At what time was the Biograph Company doing business under a bond that compelled it to deposit the entire proceeds of its projecting machine business with a Trustee from week to week? A. During the period immediately following the decision of Judge Wheeler, sustaining the validity of the Edison patent, and holding that the Biograph Company's apparatus infringed the Edison patent, and continuing until the decision of Judge Wheeler was reversed by the Court of Appeals, the Biograph Company operated under a bond on condition that the entire profits resulting from this projecting machine business, which consisted in giving motion picture exhibitions in theatres and similar places, should be deposited with a Trustee. Mr. Grosvenor: That was back in 1901 and 1902, wasn't it? The Witness: Well, I cannot remember the exact dates but it was during the period between the decision of Judge Wheeler and the decision of the Court of Appeals.