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 000516 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 #:
000516
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.

2366 Calvin S. Edwards, Direct Examination. pany of Wichita. The Mutual Film Corporation of Denver. The Famous Players Feature Film Company of Kansas City, also of St. Louis, and the St. Louis office, has the State of Missouri, and the Kansas City office has the State of Kansas. The Warner Feature Film Company of Kansas City, the Kansas City branch, the World Feature Film Company, the American Feature Film Company, the Kansas City Feature Film Company, the Monarch — I am not sure whether they call this the Monarch Feature Film Company, or whether it is just the Monarch Film Exchange. Q. Do you know who owns the Kansas City Feature Film Company, and the Monarch Feature Film Company? A. The Kansas City Feature Film Company and the Monarch Feature Film Company are owned by Mr. A. D. Flintom. Q. How long have they been in operation in Kansas City? A. Well, I can't state as to the time. Q. Well, approximately? A. I can't tell you that. It was at the time when Mr. Flintom severed his connection with the General Film Company. Q. WThat is the extent of your competition with these special feature film companies? A. They are making inroads into our business very rapidly. Q. Well, please describe the way in which they are making inroads into your business? A. We have quite a number of customers in Kansas City who get their film from the General Film Company, and at the same time are using the Famous Players features one day in the week, or two days in the week. Q. Does that condition hold good with reference to the other feature film companies there? A. The Warner Feature Film Company is doing quite a little business in that territory. The others, I know very little about. Q. Are the others from time to time supplying your customers with special feature films? A. I have no knowledge of any case where they have. Q. When one of your customers is supplied on one or more days in the week with the service of the Famous Players Company, or the Warner Feature Company, does that displace to that extent, your service? A. No, sir. Q. Mr. Edwards, will you just explain how the business