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 000385 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 #:
000385
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.

Ike Van Ronkel, Direct Examination. 2235 We do not come into that territory. They do not go into the upper part of Michigan at all. We do not go into their territory. In the upper part of Michigan — they cannot reach it as good as we can, on account of the express conditions and train service, and so forth. It is much more convenient, and quite a saving of time on the shipment of films, to serve from our Chicago office, so we go after that business and supply it if we can get it. Q. How many customers are supplied in the territory served by the Chicago branch of the General Film Company within the territory of the Detriot branch? A. That is not the Detroit branch territory at all. They cannot reach it. It is just like as if it was a separate State. Q. Mr. Gilligham has stated that a small number of customers in his territory, not exceeding 30, are supplied by the General Film Company. A. He means in his State. In the State of Michigan. The territory that he cannot reach on account of the railroad service, I think Mr. Gilligham has reference to. While it is in the State of Michigan, it is in a separate section altogether. Q. Who are your principal competitors in Chicago? A. We have three independent exchanges using the Universal program, that is, the Standard, the Anti-Trust, and the Laemmle Film Exchange, are using the Universal program. We have two Mutual corporation offices. We have the Famous Players, we have the General Feature Film Company, and about fifteen other feature wild-cat companies. Whereuupon, at 12:30 P. M., the hearing is adjourned until 2 o'clock P. M., of the same day, at the same place.