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 000172 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 #:
000172
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.

2022 J. A. Schuchert, Direct Examination. after it is sixty days old. In smaller towns, where they cannot afford to pay very much, they use film after that age. Q. In your territory, about how often would you say a film of average popularity is exhibited? How many times? A. You mean not the number of theatres, but the number of times exhibited? Q. That is right. A. Six to eight hundred times. Q. Have you ever attempted since the Patents Company license was in effect, and before you sold to the General Film Company, to hold back certain reels which you found useful, from time to time, such as educational and special films of any character? A. Yes, we have held back some of them. Not so much of the educational film. If we get a good play — ■ take, for example, something that was in demand, that the exhibitor wants, for instance, like Uncle Tom's Cabin. That film was in big demand, and we kept it for quite a long time; in fact, we have a print of it yet, and I think it must be at least two years old; but I don't know anybody that will run it any more now, it is in such bad condition. In fact, I sent it out about a week ago, and the customer said he could not use it. It was in too bad condition. Q. Suppose the film was in good condition, that particular picture, and you offered it to an exhibitor today, what would happen? A. If it was in good condition and I offered it to him, I think he would take it. Q. Is it difficult to get an exhibitor to take a play as old as that? A. If a new print were made of it, he would take it, but the old print that we have on hand, he does not want that, because there are so many pieces cut out, it would spoil the play. It has been damaged. Q. The subject is of an exceptional character, and that is the reason why the exhibitor will take it? A. That is it. Rut as to the educational films, such as the scenic subjects, and those, there are enough new ones coming out every day, and I would not see any advantage in holding those back. In fact, there is not enough demand for scenic subjects to hold them. Q. Did you find anything in ihe Patents Company license that opernted to prevent you from accumulating a library of educational and scientific films if you had been disposed to do so? A. No. As I understood, we could return any age and any make. We always tried to hold those out that stayed in good condition and those that were iu most demand.