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 #:
000502
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.

Stanley W. Hatch, Cross Examination. Q. Are there many such instances as that? A. Very few. Q. What is your system of booking with customers? A. We use partially what is called a schedule system, whereby a customer receives the same reels the same day each week at a fixed age. We only use that system in a case of competing houses where we are supplying two houses in tin* same locality. All other houses, we use what we call the pick-up booking. Q. What do you mean by that? A. Well, they select their program according to their own ideas or wishes, or to balance; for instance, give them a comedy, drama, and a Western each day, if possible. We find that is the most satisfactory way to book. But where there are competing houses, we use a schedule, so as to insure them each a division of equal makes. Q. And in that way do you avoid conflicts of service? A. Yes, sir. Q. And repeaters? A. Yes, sir. Q. If a customer wants to change after he has received his notice of booking, do you find that you can accommodate him? A. As a rule, yes, sir. Cross examination by Mr. Grosvenor : Q. Where you have two customers that are competing, yon find it necessary to arrange the program for each of those customers by dividing the reels which you have, up among them? A. We find that is the most satisfactory way. It is most satisfactory to them. Most of them seem to desire that. Q. And that is the way you do it? A. Yes, sir. Q. Making the division in the manner that seems to you fair, having in mind the amounts paid by the two customers for their service? A. Well, the amount paid is for the age, not for the division of makes. The man that pays the most money will get a newer age, but he will not receive any more of one make than another, except where it is impossible to divide them evenly. Q. You try to divide the different makes evenly, do you? A. Yes, sir; regardless of the price paid. Q. Some customers would prefer to have most of their reels of a particular make, I presume? A. Yes, sir. Q. These 268 theatres which you serve; nearly all have