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 #:
000157
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.

Harry W. Soherbr, Direct Examination. 2(>0T too remote in time, and having no bearing on any * of the issues. The Witness : The Calcium. By Mr. Kingsley: Q. The Pittsburgh Calcium Light Company? A. Yes. Q. How long did you take service from the Pittsburgh Calcium Light Company? A. About three years. Q. And afterwards, did you take service from the General Film Company? A. I went over to the independents 2 for three months. I am trying to think of the firm. It was an independent concern. For three months. And then I went back to the General Film Company. Q. Do you recall at what time you took service from an independent exchange? A. About three years ago. Q. Was this shortly after the General Film Company had purchased the stock and supplies of the Pittsburgh Calcium Light Company? A. It was before that. Before the General Film Company had purchased it. Q. Then you left— A. The Calcium Light. Q. Then you left the Pittsburgh Calcium Light Com 3 pany and took independent service? A. Yes. Q. For about how long a time would you say? A. About three months. Q. During the time that your theatre was supplied by the Pittsburgh Calcium Light Company, were you able to advertise a program in advance, and to exhibit the program on the day advertised? A. Not at first. Q. At what time were you able to do this? A. Well, toward the latter part of our relations with the Calcium Light Company. Q. Had you made any complaints to the Pittsburgh Cal 4 cium Light Company with respect to inability to keep your service clear? A. Yes. Q. Had you had difficulty with respect to keeping your service clear? A. Well, we never had any difficulty with keeping it clear. The reason we wanted the service was so that we could advertise. We have never had any trouble in keeping our service clear. Q. Your difficulty then was in respect to having a defi