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 #:
000291
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:
July 25, 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.

Harry Schwa:ubb, Direct Examination. 2141 the manufacturer. A manufacturer who was known to make good subjects would sell a great many more prints than one who made poor or mediocre subjects. Q. What, if anything, did the manufacturers do to get the business of the exchange? A. They circularized the exchange with synopses, advance notices of coining reels, advertised in the trade papers, sent men around to see the exchanges to solicit standing orders or solicit orders for film. Q. Does that competition continue to-day between the licensed manufacturers? A. Not to the extent of send ing around solicitors, no, sir, but still, our standing order — my standing orders, at least, I know, are placed purely on the grounds of what I consider are the best products, and I buy a greater number of films of a good product than of the poor product, because the exhibitors demand the good product, and I have got to meet their demands. Q. When you first entered the exchange business in Philadelphia, what was the character of the theatres there, the motion picture theatres? A. Principally store room shows. Q. Has that condition changed since then? A. Yes. There are very few of them in existence now. Q. What is the character of the motion picture theatres generally, throughout your territory, particularly in Philadelphia, as to structure, size and accommodation? A. Well, I might say that a fair sized house three years ago was one of 200 seats, and I am reasonably certain that no one, conversant with the business to-day, would think of engaging in the business unless the house had at least 500, in that territory. The houses have increased in size, and some of them run up as high as 1700 seats. Q. Have you noticed any improvement in the character of the pictures that are released at the present time as compared with the releases in the years 1907 and 1908? A. Yes, I think that we could scarcely market the releases that were put on the market in 1907 and 1908, at the present time, because the business lias undergone quite a change. The releases have improved, better performers, better photography and more carefully laid out scenarios. Stories that are better told all the way through.