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 000587 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 #:
000587
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.

Samuel H. Shirley, Cross Examination. 2437 Thereupon SAMUEL H. SHIRLEY resumed the stand. Cross examination by Mr. Grosvexor : Q. Mr. Shirley, you are the manager at the WilkesBarre branch of the General Film Company? A. Yes, sir. Q. What territorial lines, if any, have been established separating your district from the adjoining Philadelphia and Buffalo districts of the General Film Company? A. There have not been any assigned. Q. It is a fact, then, that at certain points your district may overlap some of the Buffalo district, and at other points it may overlap some of the Philadelphia district? A. Yes, sir. Q. Where there are theatres on this border territory, which are not served by any of the branches of the General Film Company, your solicitor will endeavor to get the business of that theatre? A. Yes, sir. Q. And the solicitor of another branch of the General •Film Company will try to get that business of that theatre where you have not got it, and where the theatre can be served about as well from their branch? A. I presume they do the same as I do. Q. You stated in your territory there were two hundred and thirty-five theatres. How did you get that number? A. The number of licensed theatres that we serve is taken from the records on our books. The independent theatres are taken from memory. Q. Have you any card index of these two hundred and thirty-five theatres? A. No, sir. Q. Then it is an estimate that you have made up? A. Of the independents. Q. And in stating the number, you have given your opinion of the number of theatres existing in this entire territory which may be served by your branch? Mr. Caldwell : Objected to as misleading. The witness has not stated on his direct examination that it was a matter of opinion. The Witness: No. We served, altogether, one hundred and thirty-three exhibitors last week in onr branch. Q. That is, of the two hundred and thirty-five? A. 1