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 000392 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 #:
000392
Language:
English
Collection:
Early Cinema and Government & Law
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.

2242 Ike Van Ronkkl, Direct Examination. are a lot of fine theatres seating only three hundred to five hundred that have cost a hundred thousand dollars. Q. To what extent have the old store shows been superseded by substantially built theatres, designed for the motion picture business? A. The old store shows have practically become very, very extinct. They are all gone; no one in that business any more; all turned into stores for other lines of business, and have other lines of business in them, and the new theatre has come into the neighborhood, and gradually gotten all the business. We also have had, in that same time, a few fine theatres, like Klaw & Erlanger's Colonial, and McVickers, in Chicago, where they use pictures and vaudeville, and Klaw & Erlanger's best house is called the "Colonial Nickellette." Q. Prior to the formation of the General Film Company, do you know whether or not it was a matter of common occurrence for one exchange to threaten an exhibitor if he didn't take service from that exchange, that the exchange would put in a competing theatre that would supply such a superior character of service to its competitor that he would be put out of business? A. All I could answer that on is that the individual customers would come in and say, "So-and-so was around today and told me if I didn't take his service, he would put in with my competitor a first and second-run service and put me out of business," but we never noticed that, but we would give him a better service in order to protect him, and keep the other fellow from getting him. Q. Was that a common source of complaint among the exhibitors? A. Every week, but we would try to hold our end of it ourselves. Q. To what extent are you permitted, as manager of the three branches of the General Film Company in Chicago, to select for your patrons the character of pictures which you will show them? A. I am manager of those offices, and that carries with it the privilege of managing that office. I would not have signed my name as manager unless I could buy what I pleased. Q. Do they attempt to influence you from time to time as to what pictures you should get? A. No, don't even intimate to me what I should buy, or I would not be the manager. Q. What governs you in the selection of your pictures?