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 (1914)

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:
1914
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 5
Leaf #:
000136
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.

2580 James B. Clark, Direct Examination. Q. As the owner of an independent exchange, or two independent exchanges, at the present time, do you find it feasible to transact business on a smaller amount of motion pictures per month than that specified in the Motion Picture Patents Company license? A. Have to buy more than that. Q. How much do you average a month in your two exchanges? A. Well, one exchange buys eighteen reels a week, and the other one twenty-one reels. Why it is easy enough to figure it out. Q. How much would that figure out, roughly speaking? A. Twenty-one would be about $2,100 per week. Well, one orders at least eight thousand dollars' worth per month, eighty-four hundred dollars. Q. And the other one? A. 18 reels, at 12 cents per foot. Q. Would that be pretty nearly the same thing? A. Yes, sir, pretty nearly. Q. About $2,160 per week, isn't it? A. It would be about eight thousand dollars per month, yes, sir. Q. Is there any minimum requirement by the Mutual or Universal at the present time with respect to renting film, on the part of an exchange? A. Yes, sir. Q. What is their minimum requirement? A. The Mutual is eighteen with us, and the Universal, twenty-one. Q. By that you mean per week? A. Y^es, that is the number of reels per week. Q. Now, let me see if I make myself clear. Do they insist that you rent at least that much? A. Yes, sir. Q. At the time the release day rule was adopted, did you regard that with approval or disapproval? A. Why, I approved of that. Q. What was your reason for approving of the release day rule? A. Well, it released the films, for instance, in our territory in Cleveland and Pittsburgh on the same day, and while it deprived us of shipping first run films into Cleveland, it worked the same way with Cleveland and Pittsburgh. In other words, we were then able to handle our own city, and Cleveland handled its own, with first run films. Q. Upon what does the value of motion picture service depend? A. Principally upon the age of the film. Q. And would you say that competition between exhibitors largely consists in striving to get newer service? A. Yes, sir.