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 #:
000277
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.

Thomas A. Brown, Cross Examination. 2727 I would want to pay less money, because I could not afford to pay as much for some productions as I could for others. Q. Do you take the entire output of the General Film Company? A. T use 42 reels a week. Q. Do you take the entire output of the General Film Company? A. No, sir. Q. Then you eliminate six reels a week, do you? A. Well, it is 48 reels — yes, sir. Q. You throw out six reels a week? A. Yes, sir. Q. And do you select which six you will throw out? A. Now, I request them — of course, I come so very near to running all the program, that I request them to keep out as much of the foreign stuff as I possibly can. It always hurts business to put out a foreign poster, and also the Melies. The Melies is very poor, in my town. They don't draw like some of the American manufacturers. Q. Well, no distinction is made on the price you pay per week by reason of whether you have so many reels of Edison, or so many reels of Essanay? A. Well, of course if they went to furnishing me all the Essanay, and no Edisons, I would certainly insist upon a less price per week. Q. I am not asking you if they did do something, what would happen. I am asking you a definite question, and try to answer it, Now, give the question to him, Mr. Examiner. The Examiner repeats the question to the witness, as follows : "Q. Well, no distinction is made on the price you pay per week by reason of whether you have so many reels of Edison, or so many reels of Essanay ?" The Witness: No distinction is made? Mr. Kjngsley: I object to the question on the ground that it is a quibble, and is an attempt to trap the witness into saying that each one of these pictures is charged to him at the same price, when as a matter of fact he cannot know whether they are or not. The Witness : Wxhy, it is understood. I don't see how I can answer that question in the way you want me to, because