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 #:
000382
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:
July 11, 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.

1608 Frank L. Dyer, Direct Examination. A. It undoubtedly is the result of evolution, and that evolution is the growth toward greater and greater complexity, from the very simple fundamental germ of a single reel that the theatre did not select, but took merely as a matter of novelty, and the moving picture business apparently developed from that germ until, at the present time, instead of giving one reel to a theatre, we are able to give them three or four reels every day, and change as often as they want to, from once to seven times a week. I might say that the thing is getting so absurd in the way of this constant shifting of program, that we actually have cases where a theatre changes a program twice in one day. Mr. Caldwell: As a matter of convenience, I offer in evidence a list of the branches maintained by the General Film Company at the present time. Mr. Grosvenor: Will this be identified by the witness? By Mr. Caldwell: Q. Will you identify it? Is that a correct statement of the branches of the General Film Company maintained today? A. I am certain it is correct as far as the cities are concerned, but I don't remember the street address of all of our branches. The paper offered is received in evidence and marked "Defendants' Exhibit No. 108,v and is as follows : Defendants' Exhibit No. 108. November 10th, 1913. GENERAL FILM COMPANY BRANCHES. Albany, N. Y., 737 Broadway. Atlanta, Ga., Rhodes Bldg. Annex. Baltimore, Md., 329 W. Pratt St. Bangor, Me., 123 Franklin St. Boston, Mass., 218 Commercial St. Buffalo, N. Y., 122 Pearl St.