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 #:
000320
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.

2770 Houston N. Morgan. Direct Examination. Q. And prior to assuming the management of the Gem Theatre, what were you doing? A. I have been managing and lecturing, and talking with the pictures. Q. Will jou tell us some of the houses you were connected with during the preceding years, and their seating capacity? A. I was the manager and part owner of the McKinley Theatre, 2112 South Jefferson, for about a year, I think it was. The seating capacity was between five and six hundred. I don't know the exact amount. Then I was the manager and lessee of the Fremont Theatre, Pacolecci and McNear Avenues, in St, Louis. Then I have played, my wife and I, as talking picture people, and I as lecturer for different films, feature films and ordinary films, in about — well, I might say every theatre in the City of St, Louis. That is, good theatres. Q. What is the seating capacity of the Fremont? A. The Fremont was a little over 100. About 412 I think. Q. Have you stated the seating capacity of the Gem? A. Nine hundred. A little over 900. Q. Has your experience as an active manager or lecturer in motion picture work extended over the period embraced from 1907 up to the present? A. Exclusively, yes, sir. Q. What service are you using in the Gem Theatre? A. We were using when I came there, the General service. We changed to the Universal service. Then we changed from the Universal service to the Mutual service, then from the Mutual service back to the General service. We were running it when I closed my management. The General service; what is called the commercial service. Q. What service are you using in the New American? A. The General. Q. Have you made any changes at the New American with respect to film service? A. Yes, sir. Q. What changes have you made? A. I am using the same General service, but a better service than was being run at that theatre when I took charge, and when I took charge, we were getting four changes a week, running 21 reels. I am now running 35 reels of pictures, changing daily, 5 reels of pictures changed each day. Q. Do you recall any theatre that yon were managing in 19.09 and the early part of 1910? A. I was running the McKinley Theatre, managing the McKinley Theatre in 1910, I am sure.