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 000171 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 #:
000171
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 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.

J. A. Schuchert, Direct Examination. 2021 Q. And what kind of film did you select to return? A. The very oldest, of any make, any age. Q. Film that was practically useless? A. Practically useless. In fact, we even used to take the old film that the sprocket holes were torn out of, and some of it was clippings from films, taken out of films, and thrown in a pile. We would take and put them together. Any way, in order to make a thousand feet to send them back. Q. A large part of the film that you returned you would have destroyed, anyway, wouldn't you? A. Yes. Q. You had no market for it? A. No market. After it had been returned for a while, we really felt it was a good thing for us to keep our stock clean. Q. Did you regard the film that you returned as of any value? A. No. Q. Had you sold any film in 1908, prior to the time when you became a Patents Company licensee? A. Very little. I don't think we sold twenty-five reels. Q. In point of fact, you tried to get all the value you could out of the film by renting it yourself, didn't you? A. Yes. I figured that eventually we would be better off by taking out this old film, off the market. It did away with what we called the junk exchanges, and, in that way, if you did not have the film, the junk film, or your competitor did not have it, he had to use a better grade of film, newer film. Q. This old film that you returned, was it fit or unfit for exhibition? A. In my estimation, unfit for exhibition. Q. Would a motion picture exhibitor today tolerate the pictures that were furnished to him in 1907? A. No. Q. So far as the physical condition of the film is concerned, in point of scratches and being worn, and so forth? A. No. We could not supply them with the films or the quality of films that we did in those days. Q. Based on your experience, how long a time may film be used and still be physically fit for further exhibition? A. That will vary. Some films are in excellent condition after a use of four or five or six months. Again, others will be in bad condition after a use of sixty days. Q. But, on the average, what would you regard as the limit of utility of the film? A. After the film becomes four months old, it is very little use to us, and it is on the shelf the greater part of the time. I think four months would be a fair average. The majority of customers don't want film