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 #:
000311
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.

Floyd Brown, Oross Examination. 2TG1 licensed service. Farmland, Galveston, Zionsville and Wes1 Port run one night per week. Q. You testified on direct examination that in Muncie, Indiana, there are nine theatres of which you stated seven are unlicensed. Is it not a fact that your memorandum shows that there are nine theatres in Muncie, four of them licensed, one Mutual, one Universal, two junk theatres and one feature theatre? A. Yes, sir. Since that memorandum was made up the Majestic Theatre 1ms discontinued our service, and the Columbia, I understand, lias discontinued the General Film Exclusive service, which we do not supply, leaving us with the Lyric and Crystal. Q. Well, you included in the nine theatres two theatres you termed "junk theatres." What does that mean? A. Using a cheap grade of old films. Q. They are very small places? A. Yes, sir. Q. Store room shows are they? A. Yes, sir. Q. And not entitled to be classed with the theatres that you furnish? A. Xo, sir. Q. So that as a matter of fact there are in Muncie only six real theatres? A. About six. yes, sir. Q. And at the time this memorandum was prepared you had four of those theatres? A. Yes, sir. Mr. Kixgsley: You have since lost two? The Witness: Yes, sir, I beg your pardon, we only had three. One was being supplied by the General Film Exclusive service in Chicago. By Mr. Grosvexor : Q. Are some of the theatres in this territory which your branch is supposed to include supplied by the other branches of the General Film Company? A. Yes, sir. Q. In what towns? A. Columbia City. Q. In any other towns? A. The American branch lias been supplying one house in Logansport, but as lie has been using reels which we do not buv I am not sure as to whether they are still handling that account. Q. Have you attempted by this memorandum to show the theatres supplied by the other brandies of the Genera] Film Company, or only the theatres supplied by your own branch?