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 #:
000167
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 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.

Charles A. Feexleii, Direct Examination. 2017 atres been increased by the General Film Company since you have been taking service from it? A. No, sir. Q. Was the price of your motion picture service increased at any time by the Pittsburgh Calcium Light Company before you began to take service from the General Film Company? A. Yes, sir. Q. In what respect was that? A. Well, I paid as high as $100.00 a week for my service, in fact I paid $75.00 a week for my service up to about a little over a year ago. I was taking for one house. Q. Then you began taking for two houses? A. Then I began taking for two houses. Q. What rate did you pay for the two houses? A. Sixty dollars a week for each house. Q. Was it the same service, four-reel service? A. Well, I was getting four reels of clear pictures at that time. Q. And you were paying $100.00? A. Yes, sir. Q. What sort of a service did you get later for a smaller sum? A. I got service that was satisfactory for $60.00; 3 clear pictures, and a repeater repeated back and forth. Q. What was the increase that was made in the price of your program by the Pittsburgh Calcium Light Company? A. I asked them what their rate was. I had no way of ascertaining the rate — their regular rates per film, and they set a price of $100.00. Q. These were all clear pictures, these four? A. Yes, but they were rather old, because we did not have much opposition, and it did not make much difference to me, as long as they were clear all the time. Q. What do you mean by a clear picture? A. A picture that lias never been shown in the town before. Q. Is one of your pictures now, you say, a repeater in each program? A. Yes. Q. It has been shown in the town before? A. In my house. I repeat from one house to the other. Q. You yourself have been the repeater in one of your houses? A. Yes, sir. Q. So that this fourth picture is taken from one program to the other? A. Yes. Q. So that as a matter of fact, where you were getting four new pictures a day, yon are now getting only SV2, if you average the two houses? A. Yes.