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 5
Leaf #:
000271
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.

W. Allen Kenney, Redirect Examination. 2721 ture offered you is an Edison, Essanay or Selig, the price is the same? A. Just the same. Q. Were you interested in this Crawford Exchange? A. No, sir, I was not. Q. Were you one of the officers of it, or did you assist in operating it? A. Yes, I assisted in operating it but was not an officer in it. Q. You are referring now in your testimony only to the Louisville branch? A. That is all. Q. When was it that branch lost this money that you spoke of? A. I would judge it was in about 1908. I am not positive now as to the time, but it was about that time. Q. Did this branch at Louisville ever handle licensed pictures? A. Nothing else. Q. And its St. Louis branch at the same time was handling licensed pictures? A. Yes, sir. Q. You know, do you not, that the Crawford Exchange had its license cancelled by the Patents Company? A. I know they went out of business. Q. They went out of business when their license was cancelled and the supply was cut off? A. All I know is from what I have heard. Q. AYhen was it that this branch at Louisville lost this fourteen thousand dollars? A. During the time it was operating there, and that was, I suppose, they were in there may be about a year or may be a little less or may be a little longer. Q. Did the branch operate until its license was cancelled? A. No, sir, it went out of business sometime before. In other words, they were losing money, and Mr. Crawford felt like he could handle the business the St. Louis, and he abandoned the Louisville field as far as an office was concerned. By Mr. Kingsley : Q. When you say you have entirely first runs in your theatres, you mean by that the first run in Louisville of that particular picture? A. Yes, sir. Q. It does not mean these pictures were all of the same age? A. No, sir, some of them were three days, some released three days, and some twelve. Q. And you paid for an entire program and didn't pay