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 #:
000315
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, Recross Examination. 2765 changes its service and takes on the General Film Service? A. Yes, sir. Q. Does it ever happen that a General Film show abandons the General Film Company and takes on a junk service? A. Yes, sir. Q. Has that happened from time to time in your experience? A. Yes, sir. Q. When you put in the word "junk" here opposite the name of a theatre or opposite a theatre listed in a given town, do you mean that that is a theatre which is no longer to be solicited, or is so poor and insignificant that no attention should be paid to it by your solicitors on the road? A. No, sir. Q. Do you regard it as possibly a prospect or a possible customer? Mr. Grosvenor: I object to that as leading. The Witness: Yes, sir. Recross examination by Mr. Grosvenor: Q. Then what did you mean, witness, by referring to it as a store room show or a place which you said was only open once a week, as I understood you, when you first referred to the word "junk" when I brought it out on crossexamination? Mr. Kingsley: I object to it on the ground that the answer of the; witness speaks for itself. lie1 was referring to some of the shows, and not to nil of them. The Witness: I will have to ask you to read that. The Examiner repeats the question to the witness as follows: "Then, what did you mean, witness, by referring to it as a store room show or a place which you said was only open once a week, as T understood you, when you first referred to the word 'junk,' when I brought it out on cross examination?"