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 #:
000381
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.

Ike Van Ronkel, Direct Examination. 2231 Q. Was there much of a demand for pictures of that character in Chicago? A. Not from the exhibitor, the public exhibitor, but from churches, public officers, penitentiaries, insane asylums, and so forth, we supplied quite a few. We supply all of the public places of that kind. Q. So you found no difficulty whatever in accumulating a so-called library of educational and scientific subjects from the stock of film that you had on hand, and which you replenished from time to time? A. We picked out whatever we wanted, and reserved it, and we have got a nice library of that film on hand. Q. Is it a profitable part of the business? A. Well, medium. O. Do you get good prices from schools and public exhibitions that you lease them to? A. Well, the educational end of it is not as high a price as the later released film. The prices are only medium from the churches. We do it to help the educational part of it along, to elevate the business. We do not try to charge them as much as the man that is making money off of it. Q. Did you find that the change from the sale under the former practice to a leasing, under the Patents Company license, made any change in the extent of the business that you did? A. Xot a bit. Only it helped us to get rid of the stuff. We had strict fire regulations in our city, and we had accumulated more film than the city would allow us to keep, and it was a good way to get rid of it. Otherwise we would have had to burn it up ourselves. Q. Prior to January, 1909, was it, or was it not, a common practice in your territory in which you operated for two exchanges to serve the same exhibitor simultaneously? A. Yes, sir, it was quite frequent in our territory. Quite an annoyance, and quite a detriment to the business, from both the exhibitors' and the public standpoint. Q. In what respect? A. By one exhibitor having a program advertised, and his competitor, getting from two exchanges, would probably get his reels previous, a day or two, to the other man getting it, and spoil his advertising, and get his public dissatisfied, and naturally put him out of business in a little while. Q. Did it tend to conflicts in programs, and repeaters?