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 000438 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 #:
000438
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.

1056 A. J. Clapham, Cross Examination. 1 By Mr. Kingsley: Q. Was this letter which you have just identified, and which is marked Defendants' Exhibit No. 28, based upon your experience in regard to the rapidity with which film wore out? A. Yes. Q. And you found that film in active use rapidly deteriorated, did you not? A. I figured that a film in use for a year steady would lose a hundred or more feet, and sometimes even greater. I have had reels lose two or three hundred feet out of them the first week they went in service. 2 1 estimated twenty-five per cent, loss on a film during the time it was being used. Q. That was during seven months? A. That was a film being cut up and damaged. Q. That means parts which must be cut out and thrown away? A. Yes. While being repaired. Q. At your Theatre Film Service Company, did you have a splicing clerk, or a repair clerk? A. I had a half a dozen of them. Q. You found it necessary, when a film came back from the exhibitor, to run it through, examine it, and remove any 3 portions that had been damaged, did you not? A. We used to take out almost a barrel of clippings every day. Q. And you found that this made quite a difference in the length of the film? A. It shrinks a reel up in time. Q. Now, what was the cause of this rapid wear and tear and deterioration of the film? A. Well, in one particular lot of films, I noticed it was on account — Mr. Grosvenor (interrupting) : I object to all this as being improper cross examination, and going into new subjects. 4 A. (continued) : In one particular lot of films, I noticed it was caused by this non-inflammable stock that the trust manufacturers were putting out. Some of the films did not last more than thirty days before they were cut out 40 or 50 feet at a time. By Mr. Kingsley: Q. You did not find that a practicable kind of film at that time? A. No.