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 000293 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 #:
000293
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.

Harry Sciiwalbk, Direct Examination. '21A3 the formation of the Patents Company for my branch only. I had no knowledge of what the cost in other districts except mine, per week, was. At the time of the organization of the branches and consolidation of all of the branches of the General Film Company in Philadelphia, when they were consolidated in one, the average price per week was about the same as it is now. Q. They did not proceed to jerk up prices at all? A. No, sir. Q. State about the average number of reels that were supplied prior to the formation of the Patents Company, at an average price of $10 per week for service. A. Three and a half to four reels per day. Q. And what is the General Film Company giving them today for the same price? A. About five reels per day. Q. Who are your competitors in your territory today? A. Well, we have the Interstate Film Company, with two branches. Q. What program does that company handle? A. Universal. And they also handle Ambrosio Features, and Gaumont Features. And there is the Continental Film Exchange, who handle the Mutual program. Q. How many branches have they? A. Well, the Continental have only one buying branch, but they have a subsidiary branch in which they rent their reels after they have gone over their circuit in the buying branch. I don't recollect the name of that branch particularly, but they have two there. In addition to that, they have a feature film branch called the Federal Feature Film Company, which is controlled by the Mutual Film Corporation. Q. So the Mutual maintains two branches, in addition to this special feature branch? A. Yes, sir. Then we also have about twenty or twenty-two feature film exchanges, all of which I cannot name, but some of which I can give you the names of, if you want me to. Q. Will you mention the principal ones that you recall? A. Well, the Warner Feature Film Company, the Famous Players Film Company, Electric Theatre Supply Company, the Attractive Feature Film Company, the Prince Features, the United Features, the Federal Feature Film Exchange, the Monarch Feature Film Exchange, G. W.