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:

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.

IIorace M. Thomas, Direct Examination. 2747 rental exchanges were buying certain releases, and not buying all of them. And they did not give programs then. The business was not established like it is now. Q. Did you ever attempt to advertise a program in advance at that time? A. No, sir. Q. Did you have any difficulty in keeping your programs free and clear of your competitors? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you make any attempts to avoid that condition? A. Yes, sir. Q. What attempts did you make? A. Why, I even came up to Chicago and got first runs out of here. Q. Did that solve the problem? A. No, because my competitor was getting first runs out of St. Louis, and it was a question of cut-throat competition. Q. So, having each come to the first-run condition, you still found that you were not keeping your programs clear? A. Yes, sir. Q. After you began to take service from the General Film Company Exchange, was there any change in that respect? A. Yes, because I had the franchise right there for my houses, and my competitor took different service that did not conflict. Q. Did he take a licensed service too? A. Yes, sir; one of them did. Q. But that was a service that was so arranged that it did not conflict? A. There was no confliction. Q. Was that arrangement made by you and the other house, or by the film exchange? A. Well, I think it was made by the film exchange, but it was satisfactory to both of us. Q. You say there was another house there. Was that house an independent house? A. Well, it was independent part of the time, and association part of the time. It changed management several times. At the time of the formation of the General Film Company, it was running association pictures. Q. How many motion picture houses are there in Springfield? A. Eight. Q. How many are licensed, and hoAv many unlicensed? A. Three licensed. Q. And five unlicensed? A. Yes. Q. Will you give us the names of the unlicensed houses,