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 #:
000500
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 21, 2023
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.

2350 Stanley W. Hatch, Direct Examination. Q. Is it part of his business to report to you theatres that are opening up? A. Why, only as a matter of record, that is all, yes. Q. Now, then, of that number 575, how many customers are served from the Cincinnati branch of the General Film Company? A. Two hundred sixty-eight. Q. Do you know whether in that number 575, any of the theatres are served by any other branches of the General Film Company, than your own? A. Not to my knowledge. I think not. That 575 does not include part of Indiana, Tennessee and a part of West Virginia, that is really territory belonging to other branches of the General Film Company, but on account of shipping facilities, we serve them. Q. What is the extent of the business done in your territory by the feature film companies? A. Well, not very much. It is very little. I don't think that there are more than ten houses in the entire territory that use a feature program exclusively. The majority of the feature companies put them in irregularly, just at odd times, and have no fixed program. Q. Are many of your customers served by the Famous Players Film Company? A. Only two that I know of. Q. Many by the Warner? A. Quite a good many, yes, sir. At various times. Nearly all of them at one time or another. Q. Which is the more active in your territory, the Famous Players or the Warner Feature Company? A. Well, they are both. One is about as active as the other, but the Warner does the most business. Q. Which has been longer in the business? A. The Warner has maintained an office in Cincinnati for about two or three months, but they have always been in that territory since it started. Q. Do you know when it started? A. No; they were there when I went to Cincinnati. Q. All of these feature companies that you have just named, do they maintain offices in Cincinnati for the regular transaction of business? A. The Famous Players does not. It is handled from Pittsburgh. Warner's maintain an office in Cincinnati, and also the World's Best Film Company, I think the name is — they maintain an office in Cincinnati.