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 #:
000226
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.

3254 Harry N. Marvin, Direct Examination. Mr. Grosvenor: That was six or seven years before the Patents Company was organized, wasn't it? The Witness : That was several years before. Mr. Grosvenor: I move to strike out the answer on the ground that it relates to a time too remote to have any bearing upon the issues in this case, the evidence in this case having shown that Judge Wheeler's opinion was given in 1901, and the reversal in 1902. By Mr. Kingsley : Q. Have you given all the reasons that actuated the Patents Company in imposing minimum price restrictions? A. Well, I don't recollect whether I stated as among those reasons the fact that the Edison Company and the Biograph Company, the owners of the Motion Picture Patents Company, were themselves producers of motion pictures, and they had considerable investment in the business at the time of the organization of the Motion Picture Patents Company, and they also owned patents covering various apparatus used in the art, and they felt that the permanence and growth of the business was of great importance to them, and they felt that in licensing others to join in the production and distribution business with them, that it was proper for their own protection, that some price regulation should be established, in order that the business which they conceived to be their business, since they believed that they owned the dominating patents and had created the business, should not be at the mercy of any shortsighted licensees who might, for the sake of a quick profit, demoralize the art in such a way as to jeopardize its future. Mr. Grosvenor: Whom do you mean by "they"? The Witness: The Edison Company and the Biograph Company. By Mr. Kingsley: Q. Did anyone except you, know in advance of Eebruary 13th, 1913, thai n cancellation notice was to be sent to the Greater New York Film Kental Company by the Motion