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 #:
000313
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, Redirect Examination. 2763 Q. Have you gained any theatres since tins list was made up? A. We have gained and lost. Q. So that the number that you furnish today is about the same as it is here? A. The number we furnish, today? No, the number we furnished last week was just a few less than when that list was made up. Q. And in December, 1912, that is a year ago, did you supply about the same number that are on this list? A. Just about. Mr. Grosvenor: I would like to have this list marked for identification. I would like to have an opportunity to look it over, and I will see that it is returned to the witness in the near future. The list referred to was marked by the Examiner, "Petitioners Exhibit No. 263, for Identification," and turned over to Mr. Grosvenor. Redirect examination by Mr. Kingsley: Q. In this list, or memorandum, what is the total number of motion picture houses entered? A. Four hundred and thirty. Q. How many of these are licensed? A. One hundred and eighty-seven. Q. How many are unlicensed? A. The difference between one hundred and eighty-seven and four hundred and thirty — two hundred and forty-three. Q. Do motion picture films, when wound up on the reel, all measure the same length? A. No, sir. Q. What is the variation between the length of the films wound up on the reels? A. Well, they are approximately a thousand feet. Q. I didn't ask you that. I asked you what the variation is. Are some as low as nine hundred and some as hi^h as eleven hundred? A. No, sir, they vary from possibly nine hundred and fifty to ten hundred and twenty-five feet. Q. So that, there is a range of difference of at least seventyfive feet? A. Yes, sir. Q. Does this difference in the lengths make any difference in the price that is charged the exhibitors? A. No, sir. Q. Do they, as a matter of fact, question the length of the film itself when they are taking away the reel? A. No, sir.