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 000347 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 #:
000347
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.

Robert Etris, Recross Examination. 2197 priced service for a very low one, in order to affect my customers in that vicinity. Q. And did that practice result in frequent conflicts of program? A. Invariably did. Q. You have testified that your Norfolk branch of the Lubin Film Service was discontinued. Do you know about what time that was discontinued? A. I believe, in the latter part of 1909. Q. And do you know why it was discontinued? A. It was a very unprofitable proposition. Recross examination by Mr. Grosvenor : Q. One more question. Mr. Etris, this letter written by you, just referred to by Mr. Caldwell, is dated November 13th, 1912. What company, other than your own company, and the Greater New York Film Rental Company, was distributing the output of the so-called licensed manufacturers to exhibitors in your territory at the time that the letter was written? A. None. Q. Several years prior to that date, that is, prior to the formation of the General Film Company, were there a number of companies distributing that product, that is, the product of the licensed manufacturers, in competition with each other, to the exhibitor? A. I am unable to answer that, because I came to New York for the first time as manager in May of 1911. Q. Then your knowledge of the business does not enable you to testify as to the number of exchanges in New York? A. Not prior to that time, no. Whereupon, at 5 o'clock P. M., on this Thursday, the 4th day of December, 1913, the hearings are adjourned until Monday, the 8th day of December, 1913, at 10:30 o'clock A. M., at the Hotel Manhattan, New York City.