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 000360 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 #:
000360
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.

2210 Albert J. Gilligham, Direct Examination. one combined a short time previous, and Mr. Mandelbaum had one, and we figured that, owing to the fact that there were two exchanges in the Detroit office, we had received a greater price for it than what they were paying for one office. Q. During the years 1908, 1909 and 1910, do you know whether it was a common practice for exchanges to own, or to be interested in, a circuit or string of theatres? A. Some of them were interested in theatres. Q. Did you regard that as a good thing for the business, from the standpoint of the exhibitor? A. Did I regard it as a good thing for the exhibitors? Q. Yes; for the business in general, from the standpoint of the exhibitor? A. All other exhibitors would have had an equal opportunity to have secured the same class of program, if willing to pay the price, but where exhibitors had competition with the other theatres that were owned or controlled by exchanges, they naturally didn't do business with an exchange that owned theatres. Where the privilege was abused, I considered it a detriment to the business. Q. Did you hear of many complaints at that time among the exhibitors on that account? A. No, sir, not in our territory. Q. Then that was not customary in your territory to any great extent? A. It was not general in our territory. Q. Do you know of any instance where au exchange lias threatened an exhibitor that, if he didn't take service, the exchange would put in a competing theatre? A. Yes, sir. Q. And put him out of business? Where did that happen? A. In the City of Detroit. Q. Can you tell us something about that? A. Yes, sir. A gentleman who operated the Michigan Film Company, which was a licensee of the Motion Picture Patents Company, would go to a house and solicit their business, and if the man would not favor him with his film business, he would immediately threaten to put him out of business by opening a theatre in his neighborhood. He done this in one particular instance that I know of, out on Grand River Avenue, where a man by the name of Moore operated a small theatre, and Moore would not do business with the Michigan Film Company, and this man went