The Birmingham age-herald., 1912-08-17
FILM MEN ATTACKED BY THE GOVERNMENT
Suit to Dissolve the Alleged
 Film Trust
CHARGE RESTRICTION
Many Prominent Motion Picture Firms Are Involved in Proceed ings-Careful Investigation
 of the Large Companies


 Philadelphia. August 1s.-The United States government attacked the so- called moving picture trust in civil suit filed here today for the dissolu- ton of the Motion Picture Patents com pany and the General Film company. Ten moving picture films concerns are accused of combining to monopoize the business even to the extent of in- creasing or decreasing the number of motion picture theatres in which they have no proprietary interests.
 The following individuals who are officers or directors are named defend ants with the concerns: Motion Picture Patents company, General Film com pany. Geographic Film company Thom- as A. Edison, incorporated; Essanay Film Manufacturing company, the Ka- lem company Incorporated; George Klein. Lubin Manufacturing company, Melies Manufacturing company, Pathe Freres. the Selig Polyscope company, the Yitagraph Company of America, Armat Moving Picture company, Frank l. Dyer, Henry N. Marvin. J. J. Ken nedy, William Pelser. Samuel Long, ]. A Berst, Sigmund Lubin, Gaston Nellie, Albert E. smith, George K. Shor and ". N. Selig
 Each of the defendants is alleged to have overstepped the bounds of the lawful monopoly granted by their pat ents.
 The petition asks that several com- plicated interloctury license restric- tions tying patents be ordered can celled. The government charges that unreasonable and oppressive restraints and conditions have been arbitrarily imposed on the manufacture and leas- ing of films and devices depriving the public of the advantages of competi- ton especially through the competi- tion of foreign films, the importation of which is alleged to be restricted. Edwin r. Grosvenor, assistant to the Attorney General who has charge of the pending antitrust suit against the International Harvester company. made an exhaustive investigation of the mo- tion picture business drawing up the petition filed by United States Attor ney John C. SwartleY In addition the bill is signed by Attorney General Wickersham and Assistant James Fow- Ter. The interlocutory petition says between 2.500,000 and 3,000000 feet of films are printed each week by manu- lecturers and distributed to thousands
 
 An answer of the government de- clares that sum greatly In excess of s100 000. 900 has been invested in the different branches of the business The defendants control from 50 to so per cent of the film business, furnishing approximately 1000 exhibitors. it Is added. The Case Motion Picture Pat ents company. organized in New Jer- sey in September, 1908, is the holding company of all the motion picture pat ents of the defendants. Other than collecting and distributing royalties among the defendants the bill says the patents companys "only business Is the bringing of lawsuits under the patents fl holds under the patent act"
 Suits are brought it is alleged to harass and oppress all persons en- gagged in the motion picture enterprise who have not obeyed it's mandates. The General Film company. organized in Maine in April, 1910, alleged to be the agency through which the defend ants films are distributed to exhib- itors throughout the country. was formed. the petition ayers. to monop- olize the business of the rental eX- changes, which previously distributed the films. This company, 1t is alleged, has acquired the business or cancelled the licenses held from the Motion Pic ture Patents company of every rental exchange in the United States with one possible exception at a cost of s2,- 243,0S9 in cash and s794,S00 In pre- ferred stock. The unlawful combna- tion of the defendants became effective January l, 1909, according to the pe- tition At that time the power of the monopoly of the defendants was ah solute, it was said, as they were the only manufacturers or importers of motion pictures in the United States. Not one of the thousands of exhibitors throughout the country, it is charged, can obtain motion picture manufac- tured by any one of the defendant manufacturers unless he has received a license from the patents company, which obligated him to use the films of the company exclusively. An exhib- itor has to pay $2 per week to the patents company, ii Is said, on every exhibition machine owned by him even including machines sold years before to the exhibitor without any conditions being attached to the sale.
 Washington, August 16.-The motion picture film antitrust suit filed today is regarded at the department of jus tice as an important one as 1t asks for definition of the stat ute regulating the patent laws. The suit will test the right of corpora tions and individuals to join their re- spective patent monopolies into a big monopoly through alleged conditions and agreements. These issues, 1t is as serted. are brought more forcibly into view in the present suit than any pend ing antitrust litigation.