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 #:
000354
Language:
English
Collection:
Early Cinema and Government & Law
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.

1580 Frank L. Dyer, Direct Examination. Q. How many pictures are being released weekly by the Universal group of producers and importers? A. Twentyeight, or four per day. That is the logical number of releases. Mr. Grosvenor: I object to this added answer about the logical number. It is not responsive to the question. The Witness: By "logical number" I meant it provided a program of four reels per day with a daily change. By Mr. Caldwell : Q. The figure that you gave of twenty-eight, represents the actual number of weekly releases, does it not? A. It does. Mr. Grosvenor : How did you make up the twentyeight on this? Did you consider, wherever the title is named "In three parts" you considered it as three releases? The Witness: Yes, sir; three reels. By Mr. Caldwell : Q. That is customary in this business, is it not? A. Yes, sir. Q. You counted your own releases the same way? A. In the same way. Q. Do you know how the prices to the exhibitor, charged by the General Film Company, compare with the prices charged by the exchanges handling the output of those two groups, based upon the same run films? A. On an average, our prices are somewhat higher. The films are considered better and are worth more, but I know of isolated cases where the prices obtained by the other exchanges are higher, because they give exclusive territory in some cases. For instance, I know of a theatre in Atlanta that pays $180 a week for Mutual service, because that theatre has quite an extensive territory in which the Mutual program is not shown. The price is based upon competitive conditions, and on an average we are able to get better prices than they are.