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 000526 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 #:
000526
Language:
English
Collection:
Government & Law and Early Cinema
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.

2376 Calvin S. Edwards, Cross Examination. within your general agency which is just as easily reached by the adjoining general agencies? A. They could reach all of the territory. Mr. Caldwell : I object to that. The witness has not stated that that same territory could be just as effectively reached, as I recall it, in his direct examination, I object to the form of the question. By Mr. Grosvenor : Q. Well, witness, I go back. You testified, did you not, 2 and if I am wrong, correct me, that all around the borders of your district, or general agency, there are theatres which may be reached by some one of the other branches of the General Film Company? A. They could be reached, yes, sir. Q. And you testified that when there are such theatres which are not supplied by the other branch of the General Film Company you try to get their business? A. Yes, sir. Q. And similarly, the other branch of the General Film Company tries to get the same business of that theatre? A. That I can't answer. 3 Q. If you can't get it? A. That I can't answer. Q. Please look at this map, and state the limits of this territory which can be reached just as well by the other general agencies, the near ones? Mr. Caldw7ell: That question is objected to on the ground that the witness has already delineated his territory on this particular map, and the question is therefore answered by a mere inspection of the map itself. 4 By Mr. Grosvenor: Q. Do you understand the question? A. I understand t lie question, but there should be an explanation in regard to that. So as to determine what territory the Kansas City manager thinks in his judgment is to the best interests of the exhibitor to go into. When I get an inquiry from an exhibitor, about the first thing I do is to figure up the expense. If the expense is less, from another branch, than it it from the Kansas City branch, I refer him to the other branch. If it is not, I go after the business.