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)

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 3
Leaf #:
000320
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 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.

1546 Frank L. Dyer, Direct Examination. Q. So if a picture is idle on the second day after its release, that is to say, is not exhibited anywhere, will a theatre give as much for that picture on the third day following its release as it would the second day, it not having been shown but once before? A. No. The theatre is not interested in our troubles. He does not care whether we rent it on the second day or not. Q. What would represent a fair average of the cost to the exhibitor of a first-day picture? Mr. Grosvenor: Are you talking about here in New York City or in some small country town? Mr. Caldwell : I will say in New York City. The Witness : The cost in New York at the present time is about seven dollars per day. By Mr. Caldwell: Q. And for the second day run? A. I think, about five dollars, but I do not keep those figures in memory. It is all subject to competitive conditions. Q. Then, in New York City a theatre taking a picture which was idle on the second day would not be willing to pay i\\e dollars for it? A. Not the second day price. He pays the price he agreed to pay. He does not make his agreement for a third-run picture with any knowledge of whether the picture will be shown for the second time, or whether it will be shown at all on the second day. Q. Then the periods of idleness of any given picture represent an absolute loss to the exchange? A. Exactly; the same as when a day laborer is incapacitated by rheumatism, he does not earn anything the day he is not working. Q. What relation is there, if any, between the number of customers served by an exchange, and the cost of the service to a customer? A. It is, of course, desirable that there should be as many customers as can be handled with the available supply of films, so there will be minimum periods of idleness, because in this way the service is handled at its maximum efficiency, and the price of the service may therefore be low. If there are few customers, and considerable periods of idleness of the films, the expense of the service is