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 4
Leaf #:
000199
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 21, 2023
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.

Charles F. ETaring, Cross Examination. 201U several days would not make any difference. But several weeks might. Q. Is there no difference between the first and the second and the third day? A. Very little. Q. But there is some, isn't there, generally? A. In some cases. Q. You stated on your direct examination that you advertised to show the special feature of the Vitagraph Company's "The Wreck," not on the release day, but on the day after the release day, is that right? A. Yes, sir. Q. And your competitor got it and showed it on the release day? A. I would not swear that he showed it. I know that he advertised it. I left my home this morning at S : 30, and he does not open his theatre until 2 o'clock. Q. Then he advertised it for today? A. Yes, sir. Q. And today is the release day? A. Yes, sir. Q. And you have simply advertised it for tomorrow? A. Yes, sir. Q. Which is the second day? A. Yes, sir. Q. Only you advertised it before he advertised it? A. f did. Q. He has not gotten the very particular film that you were going to show on your projecting machine, so that you cannot show it tomorrow, has he? A. Not very likely. Q. Who makes this Standard American projecting machine which you say is used in your theatres? A. Why, the American Moving Picture Machine Company. Q. Prior to the formation of the Patents Company in 1908, had you bought, from time to time, various projecting machines? A. Yes, sir. Long prior to 1908. The first moving picture show that I bought had a machine, and as we opened more theatres, I believe machines came along, also. Q. At the time the Patents Company was formed, you owned various projecting machines, did you not? A. Yes, sir. Q. And those had been sold to you or acquired by you without any conditions or restrictions having been placed upon their use when they were sold? A. As far as I can remember. Q. And did you thereafter, that is, after the formation of the Patents Company, begin to pay $2 a week as a so