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 000592 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 #:
000592
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.

2442 Samuel H. Shirley, Recross Examination. 1 Q. At that time, were the prices of motion pictures to the exhibitors governed by the age? A. Yes, sir. Q. As they are now? A. Yes, sir. Q. Are you familiar with the practice among the unlicensed producers with respect to prices? A. Yes, sir. Q. Is the price of the unlicensed pictures to the exhibitors governed by age? A. As far as I know, yes, sir. Recross examination by Mr. Grosvenor: Q. Where an exhibitor has preference for one of two 2 reels or makes, both being of the same age, he pays the same for each of those makes, regardless of his preference. Is that right? A. Yes, sir. Q. In naming these so-called independent theatres in your territory, you have included the independent theatres in Harrisburg? A. Yes, sir. Q. And have you included the independent theatres in Reading? A. No, sir. Q. Have you included those in Hazelton? A. Yes, sir. Q. And in Easton? A. Yes, sir. Q. And in Shamokin? A. Yes, sir. 3 Q. And in Lancaster? A. No, sir. Q. There are certain towns in which you are also in competition with one or more of the Pittsburgh branches of the General Film Company? A. Not to my knowledge. Q. You think not? A. No, sir. Re-examination by Mr. Kingsley: Q. Is there any licensed manufacturer from whom you sometimes fail to order any prints at all? A. Yes, sir. Q. Who is that? A. Melies is one. I believe, the only 4 one at the present time. Recross examination by Mr. Grosvenor: Q. How long since you have ordered from Melies? A. I can't tell exactly. I should judge, about a year and a half. Re-examination by Mr. Kingsley: Q. Since you have been in charge of the branch with which you are now connected, have your orders for mo