OCR Text |
Show WILL FIGHT FILM TRUST Government Files Civil Suit to Dissolve Motion j Picture Combine. Philadelphia, Aug. 16. The federal government attacked the so-called moving picture trust in a civil suit filed hero today for the dissolution of the motion picture patents company com-pany and the General Film company. Ten leading film concerns arc accused accus-ed of combining to monopolize the business, even to the extent of In creasing the number of motion picture pic-ture theaters. In which they have no ' proprietary Interest. The following corporations and individuals, in-dividuals, who aro officers or directors, direc-tors, are named defendants: Motion Picture Patents company; General Film company; Biograph company; Thomas A. Edifeon, (Inclr Essanay Film Manufacsturing Co., Tho Kalem company (Inc.); George Kleine; Lubin Manufacturing company; com-pany; Mclies Manufacturing company; com-pany; Pa the Freres, the Sollg Polyscope Poly-scope company; the Vltagraph company com-pany of America; Armat Moving Picture Pic-ture company,. Frank L. Dyer; Henry Hen-ry N. Marvin, J. K Kennedy; William Wil-liam Pclzer Samuel Long; J. A Berst; Selgmund Luhln: Gaston Mellcs, Albert J3. Smith. George K Spoor and W. N. Selig. Each of the" defendants is alleged to have overstepped the bounds of the lawful monopoly granted by their patents and the petition asks that several complicated interlocking license li-cense restrictions, tying patents together, to-gether, be ordered cancelled. The government charges that unreasonable un-reasonable and oppressive restraints and conditions have been arbitrarily Imposed upon the manufacture and leasing of films and machines, depriving de-priving the public of the advantages of competition, especially the competition com-petition of foreign films, the importation importa-tion of which Is alleged to have been reBtrlcted. Made An Investigation. Edwin P. Grosvenor, special assistant assist-ant to the attorney general, who has charge of tho pending anti-trust suit against the International Harvester company, made an exhaustive investigation investi-gation of tho motion picture busl-neas, busl-neas, drawing the petition filed today by United States Attorney John C. Swartley. In addltlou the bill la signed sign-ed by Attorney General Wlckersham and James A. Fowler, his assistant. Tho government's petition Bays between be-tween 2,500,000 and 3,000,000 feet of pictures are printed each week all over the United States. The government govern-ment declares that a sum greatlj In excess of $100,000,000 hn3 been Invested In-vested In the different branches of the business. The defendants control, It Is added, from JO to SO per cent of the film business, furnishing approximately ap-proximately 7,400 exhibitors. The Motion Picture Patents com-j com-j Pany, organized in New Jersey in , September. 190S, is the holding com-, com-, Pany of all the motion picture patents pat-ents of the defendants. Other than collecting and distributing distribut-ing royalties among the defendants, the bill s'avs the Patents company's only business Is the bringing of law I fiuits under the patent law. Hun-! Hun-! dreds of suits have been brought, It J ir alleged, to harrans and oppress all i:rBo3 oocMSed In rtQe motion pic ture buslne&s who have not obeyed its mandate. '' he General Fnro company, organized organ-ized in Maine :n April. 1910, and alleged to be the agency through which the defendants' films are distributed dis-tributed to exhibitors throughout the country, was formed, the petition says, lo monopolize the business of the rental exchanges, which previously -distributed the- films. This company, it Is declared, has acquired the bus!-' Hess or cancelled the license?, held I from tho Motion Picture Patents compan, of every rental exchange) 'n the L'nited States, with one exception ex-ception at a cost of $2,243,091 In cash and 794,800 In preferred stock. Power of Monopoly. The alleged unlawful combination of the defendants became effective January 1. 1909, according to the petition. pe-tition. At that time tho rower of tho monopoly of tl.o t'ofy.Hlrr.ts, was absolute, it is stated, as they were the onlv niai,fsc:rers or importers of mot:- n p'ctMiiss In he country. "ot one of ihe thousands of t-xhlbl-fors tniviuhnr.-. ihe United States, it is charged, can obtain a motion picture operated by any one of the ten defendant manufacturers unless he has received u license from the patents pat-ents company, which obliges him to use the films of the alleged combination combi-nation exclusively. An exhlbittr has lo pay $2 a week to the patents comiuiiy. It Is said, on ever exhlbitini: macthlne owned by nlm. en including machlneE sold years before to the exhibitors, without with-out any conditions being attached to the sale. "Defendants of tho mtcnt corrpnny," the bill reads, "uore able to and did determine whether now motion picture pic-ture theaters sh.o-.Id or should not be opened and whether old ones .should be closed, although defendants had no proprietary interest in such theaters This power thoy have exorcised ex-orcised and continue to exercise arbitrarily arbi-trarily and unreasonably through the patents company Each of tie ten film manufacturing manufactur-ing defendants havo license agreements agree-ments with the patents company, providing pro-viding films shall not fall Into the hands of exhibitors who use any but the defendants' exhibiting or projecting project-ing machines Tho patents company agree with manufacturers of exhibiting machines, stipulating that every machine be sold subject to'the condition that it shall be used only for tho films of the alleged al-leged -combination. These agree ments, it 1b said, fixed the selling price of machines. |