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 00090 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 #:
00090
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.

2 1940 William F. Kertsciiek, Direct Examination. Redirect examination by Mr. Kingsley: Q. But you could have had the licensed service if you had wanted it, in Binghamton? A. Provided I was willing to get a program that conflicted with my competitor. Q. It was not denied to you? A. No, sir, they advised me to get the independent. Q. But they were perfectly willing to give it to you if you had wanted it? A. They were doing business with me in Newburgh, then. Thereupon, WILLIAM F. KERTSCHER, the next witness produced by defendants, of lawful age, being first duly sworn by the Examiner, deposed as follows: Direct examination by Mr. Kingsley: Q. What is your business, Mr. Kertscher? A. Motion picture exhibitor. Q. How long have you been a motion picture exhibitor? A. Now, four years. Q. Are you the proprietor of an establishment, or the manager of one? A. Proprietor. Q. Where is your theatre? A. I have three, practically, that is, one is an open-air show, and one on Graham Avenue, in Brooklyn, near Jackson Street. Q. Where is the other one? A. 743 Grand Street Brooklyn. Q. Do you live in Brooklyn? A. I do. Q. Is your open-air place open, or closed now? A. Closed. Q. WThat is the capacity of your two theatres? A. They are — the 385 Graham Street place is 272, and the Grand Street place is 299, but we are enlarging that, and it is in the course of alteration, and the alterations now goiug on will extend it up to 600. Q. Have you had any other places besides those two, to which you have referred? A. I had the World Theatre, at 279 Graham Avenue. Q. When did you have the World Theatre? A. About two years ago. Q. Did you have any other theatre, at any time? A. That is all.