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 000123 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 #:
000123
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.

A. H. Sawyer, Direct Examination. 741 Panama Canal," which is about to start on a tour of the leading theatres of the country. Q. You may state whether or not those are some of the pictures which you have been prevented from exhibiting in the licensed theatres? A. These are. Q. Does your company also produce pictures in colors, of dramas and stories, such as are produced by the moving picture companies generally? A. We have produced almost every conceivable kind of a subject that camera men, and artists could produce, including comedy, dramas, topical events, scenic views, and scientific and educational subjects. In fact, I may add we have a very large library of all those classes of subjects. Q. Does this description which you have given of the licensed theatres, and your being unable to show your pictures in them, apply generally throughout the United States? A. Yes. Q. And you may state whether or not throughout the United States the larger theatres as a general rule are the licensed theatres? A. I would say that the better class of houses, in which are included the leading vaudeville houses, are licensed theatres; in other words, that remark may be qualified, because the independent service is in as fine houses as the licensed service, but there are more of the higher type houses using licensed service, owing to the fact that the big vaudeville interests have been running the licensed film, and their interests are so large — they have been notified, particularly the Keith interests, that if they used independent film, speaking of kinemacolor and independent film, in any one house controlled by any part of that organization, that the licenses would be revoked in all of the Keith houses. Now, I think my remarks about the best houses should be qualified in that way. If I may say one more thing — Q. Yes. A. And when I spoke of leading theatres, having played these big productions, I mean the dramatic houses, combination houses, and not houses that are usually devoted to moving pictures and vaudeville or moving pictures alone. The witness was excused until 10:30 A. M., March 1, 1913.