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 #:
000618
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.

2468 Albert W. Goff, Recross Examination. run it; bis patrons want to see that subject. It will do his business good. Q. Do you find, for instance, if you are serving an exhibitor Avitb a ten, or a twenty, or a thirty-day-old service, and he is dissatisfied with the twenty-d ay-old picture, which you have included in his program, and wants to change it, and you are unable to substitute any tAventy-day-old picture in place of that one, that he will prefer to accept a thirty -dayold picture of another producer, in place of a twenty-dayold picture? A. They will. Q. Are changes of that kind frequently made? A. Not very often. Q. But they are made when tbe customer wishes it? A. Yes, sir, we are glad to change anything for them. By Mr. Kingsley: Q. Is the price of service to exhibitors regulated by the age of motion pictures? A. It is. Q. What do you mean by age of motion pictures? Do you mean its physical age, or the fact that it has been released for a certain length of time? A. Released for a certain time. Q. Suppose that a motion picture has been released for sixty days, and you are about to supply it to an exhibitor, and you find that the copy you have has been so badly injured that it is in no physical condition to send out, and you take a new copy, a cold copy, from your stock and supply it to him, would that cause any change in the price? Mr. Grosvenor : Objected, to, as irrelevant and immaterial. A. It would only be an instance that you cite. By Mr. Kingsley: Q. I say, if you supply a new copy which you have on your shelf, which is a sixty-day copy, would that increase the price of it to your exhibitor? A. No, sir. Recross examination by Mr. Grosvenor: Q. Do you ever have a reel on your shelf sixty days unused? A. I can't think of one just now. I might be able to get into the records and find one, but it would be some job.