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 00048 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 4
Leaf #:
00048
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.

1898 Samuel Long, Direct Examination. Cross examination bj7 Mr. Grosvenor : Q. Do special features constitute an important part of the program in your theatre, Mr. Landau? A. Very much. Q. You have a special feature every day? A. No, sir. Two days in a week. Q. And then you show each special for three days? A. No, sir ; for two days. Q. What days are they? A. Tuesdays and Wednesdays with me. Q. They are generally multiple reels, are they? A. Five and six-reel productions, or four, as the case may be. At the present time it is the Famous Players that I am using, and the All Star Features, and so on. Whereupon, at 12 : 15 P. M., the hearing is adjourned until 2 : 30 o'clock P. M., at the same place. New York City, November 20, 1913. The hearings were resumed pursuant to adjournment at 2:30 o'clock P. M., on November 20, 1913, at Room 159, Manhattan Hotel, New York City. The appearances were the same as at the morning session. Thereupon, SAMUEL LONG, the next witness called by defendants, of lawful age, being first duly sworn by the Examiner, deposed as follows : Direct examination by Mr. Caldwell : Q. Mr. Long, where do you live? A. New York City. Q. And in what business are you engaged? A. In the production of motion pictures. Q. What is the name of your company, if any? A. Kalem Company. Q. You are one of the defendants in this case? A. I am. Q. When was the Kalem Company organized? A. In 1907.