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)

Page scan 00081 from 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 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 2
Leaf #:
00081
Language:
English
Collection:
Government & Law and Early Cinema
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 12, 2024
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.

William Fox, Direct Examination. 699 Yes, they all have a license with the Motion Picture Patents Company. Q. Now, referring generally to the theatres in the City of New York, are the larger theatres, I mean in size and seating capacity, licensed or unlicensed theatres? A. Ninety-five per cent, of the large theatres in Greater New York are licensed by the Motion Picture Patents Company. I say ninety-five per cent, in view of the fact that I do not know of more than one place where unlicensed pictures are shown at the present time in a large theatre. Q. In what places outside of New York have you an interest in moving picture theatres? A. The Washington Theatre, in Newark, and the Nelson Theatre, in Springfield, Mass., and the Grand Opera, in New Haven. Conn., and the Lyric, in Bridgeport, Conn. Q. And in those cities that you have just named are the larger theatres the licensed theatres? A. Yes, sir. Q. And the same thing is true of those cities as is true in New York? A. Yes, sir. Q. What effect, if any, upon the selection of pictures by you for exhibition in your theatres does the provision in the license agreement barring out independent films have? A. It prevents us from giving the public the best there is made, and by that I mean this: There are several manufacturers at the present time, and have been for the past few months, the past year, say, of independent film, that we are unable to exhibit in our places of exhibition on account of a restriction clause, which we would like to exhibit, and there are many reels of film made by licensed manufacturers that are not worthy of showing anywhere, or in any place of exhibition, on account of lack of merit, that we are obliged to exhibit in places of exhibition on account of the number of reels required to make the program ; and in our rental exchange we have the hardest kind of a time in prevailing upon some of our exhibitors to accept some of the reels that we must purchase from the licensed manufacturers, that they are not willing to accept on account of lack of merit, and in substitution of those reels if we were able to show unlicensed films that have merit it would be a great benefit to the public at large. Q. You may state whether or not what you have said applies to what are known as kinemacolor pictures. A. I should take much pleasure in exhibiting kinemacolor pic