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 #:
000322
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.

2772 Houston N". Morgan, Direct Examination. Q. And during that same period, have you been familiar with the prices charged by the licensed exchanges? A. I have. In my position as manager. Q. How do the prices charged by the unlicensed exchanges compare with the prices charged by the licensed exchanges during the same period? A. Well, now, that is a very peculiar question to answer, and I will tell you why. Being an ex-assistant manager of an independent exchange, I know their methods and standard of prices that they were getting, and being an exhibitor wTho has been renting from the licensed people, I have my knowledge from them. I have found that it has been a very hard proposition to keep thoroughly posted as to the prices maintained by independent exhibitors — not exhibitors, but film exchanges, owing to certain peculiarities of their ways of doing business, while the General Film Company — my experience with them has been that their prices have been about the same, and not changeable and fluctuating, as you might say. Q. What theatre did you have which for some period ran an unlicensed program? A. The Mclvinley Theatre. Q. Did the McKinley Theatre ever run a licensed program? A. Yes, sir. Q. What price did you pay for the unlicensed program? A. For the unlicensed program, I paid twenty — I think it was twenty seven dollars a week. Q. What price did you pay for the licensed program? A. I think I paid twenty-eight dollars a week. I think it was just about the same price. Q. Did you have the same number of reels? A. Yes, sir; yes, sir. Q. So that the price did not vary to any great extent, so far as the number of reels Avas concerned? A. Not as to reels, but the difference in price was — with the unlicensed program I did not have to pay for posters, while the licensed program I had to pay for every poster used. There was the difference. Q. Do you recall your experience as the manager of a motion picture theatre in 1909 and the early part of 1910 with respect to keeping your program clear from that of your competitors? A. What do you mean, the General program and the Universal program? Q. No. I am speaking now — A. Any particular program?