The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1912-08-16
Federal Government Attacks
Motion Picture Combine.
Ten of the Leading Concerns
Are Made Defendants.
ACCUSED OF MONOPOLIzING
And Arbitrarily Limiting the
Number of Theaters.
Several Officers and Directors
Are Named Individually.


government attacked the socalled
moving picture trust in a civil suit
filed today for the dissolution of the
motion picture patents company and
the general film company. Ten lead
ing film concerns are accused of COM
bining to monopolize the business,
even to the extent of increasing or
decreasing the number of motion pic
ture theaters, in which they have no
proprietary interest.
The following corporations and in
dividuals who are officers or direc-
tors, are named defendants: Motion
Picture Patents company, General
Film company. Biograph company
Thomas A. Edison (Inc.); Essana
Film Manufacturing company, the
Kalem company (Inc-); George kleie;
Lubin Manufacturing company; Me
lies Manufacturing company, Pathe
Freres, the Selig Polyscope company,
the Vitagraph company of America;
Armat Moving Picture company;
Frank L. Dyer, Henry n. Marvin, j.
J. Kennedy, William Pelzer, Samuel
Long, J. A. Berst Siegmund Lubin,
CASTOR Melies, Albert r. Smith
George K. Spoor and w. n. Selig.
Each of the defendants is alleged to-
have overstepped the bounds of the
lawful monopoly by their patents and
the petition asks that several compli-
Gated interlocking license restrictions,
tying patents together, be ordered can
ceIed The government charges that
unreasonable and oppressive restrain is
and conditions have been arbitrarily
imposed on the manufacture and leas-
ing of films and machines, deprlV1hs
the public of the advantages OF COM
petition. especially the competition of
foreign films, the importation OF
which is alleged to be restricted.
Bill signed by WickershaIn-
Edwin P. Grosvenor, special assistant
NJ f2
of the pending antitrust suit against
the International Harvester company,
made an exhaustive investigation OF
the moving picture business, drawing
the petition filed today by Unlteo
states Attorney John c. Swartley. In
addition the bill is signed by Attorney
General Wickersham and James A
Fowler his assistant.
The governments petition says be
tween 2. 500 600 and 100000 feet of pic
tures are printed each week by manu-
facturers and distributed to thousands
of exhibitors, all over the Umted
States.
The government declares that sum
greatly in excess of SlOO,OOo,OOO mas
been invested in the different branches
of the business. The defendants con
troll. it is added. from 20 to so per
cent of the film business furnishing
approximateIy 1000 exhibitors.
The Motion Picture Patents COM
her 1908, is the holding company of
all the motion picture patents of the
defendants.
other than collecting and distribut-
ing royalties among the defendants the
biiI saws the Patents company's only
business is the bringing of lawsuits
under the patents it holds Hundreds
of suits have been brought, it is al
legged, "to harass and oppress all per
sons engaged in the motion picture bus
oh n
dates"
The Rental Monopoly.
The General Film company organic
ed in Maine in April, 1910, and alleged
to be the agency through which the
defendants films are distributed to
exhibitors throughout the country was
formed, the petition AYERS, to monopo-
lie the business of the rental ex-
changes, which previously distributed
the films. This company, it is declared
has acquired the business or cancelled
the licenses held from the Motion Pic
ture Patents company of every renta'
exchange in the United States with one
exception at a cost of 81, PAS, ,0S9 in cash
and $794.S00 in preferred stock.
The alleged unlawful combination of
the defendants became effective Janu-
Gry 1, 1909, according to the petition.
At that time the power of the monopoly |
of the defendants was absolute, it is
stated as they were the only manu-
facturerS or importers of motion pic |
lures in the country. Not one of the |
thousands of exhibitors throughout the |
United States, it is charged, can OBJ |
tain a motion picture manufactu by |
any one of the ten defendant manu-
facturers unless he has received a Ii
cense from the Patents company which |
obligates him to use the films of the |
alleged combination exclusively.
Exhibitor Is Pinched
An exhibitor has to pay $2 a weel |
to the Patents company, it is said, on |
every exhibiting machine owned by |
him, even including machines sold |
years before to the exhibitors, without |
any conditions being attached to the
sale
Defendants through the Patents |
company the petition adds, were |
enabled to and did determine whether |
new motion picture theaters should OF |
should not be opened and whether old
ones should be closed. although de-
PENDANTS had no proprietary interest in |
such theaters. This power they have
exercised and continue to exercise ar
bitrarily and unreasonably through the |
Patents company.
Each of the ten film manufacurine |
defendants have license agreements |
with the Patents company providing |
films shall not fall into the hands of |
exhibitors VINO use any but the de- |
PENDANTS exhibiting projecting ma |
chimes.
The Patents company agreed with |
manufacturers of exhibiting machines |
stipulating that every machine be sold |
subject to the condition that it shall /
be used only for the films of the al |
legged combination. These agreements