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 000546 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 #:
000546
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.

2390 Philip J. Scheck, Direct Examination. your license agreement permitting the Patents Company to cancel the license on fourteen days' notice? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did that operate on your mind at all? A. No, sir. Q. In determining whether you would sell or not? A. No, sir. Q. Did you make any agreement with the General Film Company, either express or implied, that you would not go into the film exchange business in Baltimore, or anywhere else? A. No, sir. Q. Was anything said on that subject? A. No, sir, nothing at all. Q. And after the sale of your business to the General Film Company, in October, 1910, did you continue as branch manager of the General Film Company, for any time after that? A. Yes, sir; I think it was about six or eight months, I couldn't really tell you, but six months I was managing the business there. Q. Did that branch of the General Film Company raise the prices to the exhibitor? A. No, sir; the prices remained the same. Q. You were familiar with the prices you had charged before that? A. Yes, sir. Q. The theatres in Baltimore, and the surrounding territory, at that time, wTere the most of them taking a daily change of program? A. Yes, sir. Q. How many reels to a change? A. They were mostly getting about three reels in Baltimore, at that time, per day. Q. What are they getting now, do you know, the most of the theatres? A. The majority of them are getting about four reels now. Q. And are the prices now any higher than they were then? A. No, I think the prices are about the same. Q. Then they are getting four reels a day, now, at the same price that they were paying for three reels before? A. Yes, sir, that they were paying for three reels before. Q. Is the quality of the service that they are getting now, any different from what they were getting then, in point of the character of the pictures? A. I think the quality of the pictures has been steadily getting better, and on to a higher standard. From the very inception of the business, up to the present lime, 1 think it has been getting better right along.