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 #:
000536
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.

2386 William C. Brandon, Direct Examination. lanta. They have sub-branches in Tampa, Florida, and Charlotte, North Carolina, and in Little Rock, Arkansas. The Consolidated Film & Supply Company, which handles the Universal output, located in Atlanta, with sub-branches at Charlotte, Jacksonville and Little Rock. Q. What special feature companies are operating in Atlanta, or in the territory served by your branch? A. The Famous Players Company and the Warner's Feature Company. Warner's Features is located in Atlanta, and the Famous Players are handled by some individual concern in Chattanooga. I don't know the name of it, but I think it is the Franklin Feature Film Company. I am not positive. And the World's Special Feature Company, located at Atlanta. Q. Mr. Brandon, what is the extent of the competition that you are meeting in your territory from the special feature companies? A. Well, they are making serious competition. Do you mean the extent in dollars and cents, or in the number of theatres? Q. In any respect. Just describe how keen that competition is? A. That competition is very keen and very active. They are after our houses at the present time, morning, noon and night, to put in their features, and are meeting with large success at the present time. Q. Have they gotten many of your customers? A. Yes, quite a few. Quite a number. Q. And what character of customers are they taking from you, in point of size and importance? A. Well, mostly smaller customers. We have very few large customers in that territory; very few large theatres. Q. In Atlanta, aren't there very many large motion picture theatres? A. The largest motion picture house in Atlanta has a capacity of 500, which is not large, compared to the capacity of theatres in other sections. Q. In what class of theatres, as a rule, are these special feature companies putting in their service? A. All classes. Q. How many motion picture theatres are there In the territory which you have just described? A. Approximately 020. Q. And of that number, how many are served by your