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 000367 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 #:
000367
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.

Albert J. Gilliuiiam, Direct Examination. 2217 A. Pardon me; I overlooked one thing in my previous answer, if I can repeat it to correct it. Q. You may. A. The largest theatre in the city is using the Famous Players program. Q. In what city? A. In Detroit. The Liberty Theatre. Exclusive motion picture house. Q. Was there ever any time, in your territory, when it could be said that there is such a thing as a definite market price of service to the exhibitor? A. There was one time, shortly after the formation of the Film Service Association, that there was a schedule of prices agreed on by the Film Exchange men, and the exchanges attempted to enforce it, but it was only of short duration. I do not believe it lasted over thirty days. Q. Well, with that exception, what would your answer to my question be? A. There has never been any time since, that there has been any regulation of price. Q. Is it customary to have a daily change of program throughout your territory? A. That is the general custom through our territory. Q. How long has that custom been in vogue? A. That custom has been in vogue since about 1909. It was more general from 1910 on, from what it was previous. Q. And what is the average number of reels constituting a daily change? A. The average number of reels is three reels, daily change. Q. What is the average cost of service to the exhibitor in your territory? A. The average cost of service to the exhibitor in our territory, that is, the customers we are furnishing, is $33 per customer. Q. And the same class of theatres, and for the same class of service, what were they paying, say, in December, 1908? A. In December, 1908, they were paying as much, if not a better price, than what they are paying now, but they did not receive as many changes as we are now furnishing. Q. Was the price of service to the exhibitor increased after the formation of the Motion Picture Patents Company? A. No, sir. Q. When the General Film Company entered that territory, did it raise the price of service to the exhibitor? A. No, sir. Q. Is the exhibitor getting more or less for his money