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 #:
000291
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.

Adolph Powell, Direct Examination. 2741 bouse in Kokomo was three hundred and seventy-five, and the name of the theatre was the Ideal, and the name of the theatre in Chicago is the May Theatre, and the seal inncapacity is three hundred, all the law permits us to have. Q. Is that the only theatre you have now in Chicago? A. Yes, sir. Q. What service are you using in the1 May Theatre? A. The General Film Company's service. Q. Have you always used the licensed service in the May Theatre since you have owned it? A. Yes, sir. Q. What service did you use in the Ideal Theatre? A. The same service, the licensed service. Q. From what rental exchange were you obtaining service for the Ideal Theatre when you operated it? A. At that time it originally was the American Film Service. Q. And then, from what? A. Then it became the General Film. Q. Was that located in Chicago? A. Yes, sir; I have been taking from the same one for five years. Q. So your experience with the American Film Service exchange has been continuous for five years? A. Yes, sir. Q. And extending from the period when it passed into the control of the General Film Company? A. Yes, sir, I began with the American Film Service and continued with the General Film, and I have never changed even the office, not only have not changed the service, but not even the office. Q. Now, in 1009 and 1910, before the General Film Company became the owner of or interested in the property of the American Film Service exchange, did you have any difficulty in securing a fixed definite program for the Ideal Theatre, which you could advertise in advance? A. Yes, sir. I had some experiences which were very unpleasant experiences at the time I was getting the service. I would then have some of the other theatres, after I had advertised a certain picture or pictures, have the other theatres get the pictures ahead of me, and the consequences were at times such as that we were at loggerheads and fighting each other. Q. Have you any particular example in mind of any unpleasant instances of the kind? A. I have got one in mind.