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 (1913)

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:
1913
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 3
Leaf #:
000181
Language:
English
Collection:
Early Cinema and Government & Law
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.

H. N. Marvin, Direct Examination. 1407 Defendants' Exhibit No. 87. 1 THE LYRIC College Ave. A. W. Rhorer, Manager Athens, Ga., Sept. 14th, 1909. Motion Picture Patents Co., New York City. Gentlemen : — 2 Replying to your favor of 9th inst., impossible to send you contract I entered into with film company, as all communications were by phone excepting a few letters relative to prices etc. The Birmingham Film Supply Co. agreed to furnish me with 3rd day run for $50.00 per week, commencing August 23rd. As stated to you before I was a new man in the business, and did not fully understand the in and outs of the game. The old adage has proved correct, however, in this instance and I am fully acquainted with the film situation in the South. Instead of furnishing me 3rd run stuff, I got four 3rd run films during two weeks 3 service, and one of these was being run at the other theatre here the same day. The rest of the time I pieced in with independent stuff. The consequence was did not establish my reputation as hoped for, and did not keep up the standard that my theatre called for. I had put up one of the finest little theatres in the South, costing approximately $7000.00, and was very desirous of showing up fine at the opening. After this two weeks experience, I made a phone contract with The Theatre Film & Supply Co. of Birmingham to furnish me with 3rd run stuff at $60.00 per week. On Monday of last week, they failed to deliver the goods 4 on account of error in shipment. Again I sought refuge with the independents and supplied the day. The next three days I got what was contracted for, but on the 4th day I got a film that had been shown at one of the theatres here the day before. I investigated and found they were getting 2nd run stuff, one theatre from the same exchange I had begged to give me a price on 2nd run. Again I called on independents. The next day was the same, and I wrote them to discontinue service. This last exchange did deliver