Start Over

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 #:
000229
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. 3257 the matter, or have any relations with him relative thereto? A. None whatever. Q. When the film patent was reissued in 1904, was there any considerable quantity of foreign motion pictures in this country? A. There was not. Q. Was it the purpose of the Motion Picture Patents Company, or of those who organized the Motion Picture Patents Company, to acquire all the patents relating to the motion picture art? A. No. They had no intention of acquiring all such patents, and they only did acquire a very small percentage of such patent's. Q. Did the Motion Picture Patents Company notify distributors and middle men, generally, of the proposed licensing arrangement in January, 1909? A. It did. Q. What was the capitalization of the Biograph Company in 1908? A. Its capitalization then was and always has been two million dollars. Q. At the time the witness Palmer sold the stock and equipment of the Motion Picture Service Company of Rochester to the General Film Company, were you present at the negotiations between him and Mr. Kennedy? A. I was not. I was never present during any negotiations concerning the purchase of any property by the General Film Company. I did see Mr. Palmer on some occasions long prior to the time at which these negotiations were had, but entirely with reference to matters pertaining to the conduct of his exchange as a licensee, and not in any respect with reference to the sale of any property. Q. So if Mr. Palmer stated on his direct examination that you were present at the time he had certain negotiations with Mr. Kennedy, relative to the sale of the stock and equipment of his exchange, he is mistaken? A. He is. Q. Do you know what was the principal feature of the business carried on by Eberhard Schneider in 1907 and 1908? A. At that time the principal business of Eberhard Schneider was an optical business, and I believe during that period, he manufactured a few motion picture projecting machines. Q. Was he at that time manufacturing motion pictures to any considerable extent? A. He was not. Q. Is there at present any decree, order or injunction in force which prevents the licensed producers from ceas