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 #:
000504
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.

2354 Stanley W. Hatch, Cross Examination. Q. Then you use your own judgment as to what theatres should be served from Cincinnati? A. Yes, sir. Q. And what are the branches around your office that come around the outskirts of your territory? A. Indianapolis, Cleveland, Detroit, and Washington to a certain extent, in the southern part of West Virginia. Q. Of course, there are on the outskirts or along the borders of your territory customers who may be supplied almost with the same facility by these other exchanges as by you? A. Yes, sir. Q. Those theatres which you have included in this list of 575? A. No. The doubtful territory I left out is a part of Indiana, the western part of Virginia, and a very small portion of Tennessee. That is doubtful territory down there, and I do not include that in those figures. Q. Then doubtful territory — A. Those figures are only theatres in Ohio, Kentucky and West Virginia, not Indiana, Tennessee or Virginia. Q. Doesn't the General Film Company have a branch in Cleveland? A. Yes, sir. Q. And also one in Columbus? A. That is a subbranch, under the jurisdiction of the Cleveland office. Q. Aren't there towns which may be served with about the same facility from Cincinnati as from Cleveland? A. Yes, a few. Q. Then there are towns on the outskirts of your territory which are also on the outskirts of the Cleveland territory? A. Yes. Q. Have you included such theatres in your list of 575? A. We included them in our list, if we were supplying the theatre in that town. Q. Then you have only included towns in which you give service? A. No, if it is doubtful territory, or if it is on the edge of two territories, but we are supplying the town, say, with one house, and there were three houses in the town, we included those three houses in our list. Q. Might one of the other theatres in that town be supplied by one of the other branches of the General Film Company? A. I don't think it could be, without our knowledge, because it would cause conflictions, and it would be natural for the manager of the other branch to ask us if we were supplying anybody there.