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 #:
000326
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.

277G Houston N. Morgan, Direct Examination. Q. Do you have any difficulty in keeping your program clear from Mr. Redmond's program? A. None whatever. Q. Do both obtain their supply from the same exchange? A. Yes, sir. When we went to the General Film to make arrangements for from twenty to thirty-five reels, the manager told me that "Mr. Redmond lias a contract Avith us for so much money for so many reels, and now if you want thirty-five reels, your fifth reel possibly quite often will be a repeater on his house," and I took my service with that understanding, but they were to keep me in the clear as far as time was concerned as much as they could, which they have done up to the present time. Q. What do you mean by "keeping you in the clear in respect to time?" A. When I repeat on Mr. Redmond they go way back and give me, not his latest run, but some he ran back thirty or sixty or ninety days ago. He has been running the service quite a while. Q. In your experience in the motion picture business here in St. Louis, have you had any experience or any knowledge of competition between houses where one was owned or partially owned by the manager of an exchange or by an exchange owner? A. I certainly did, and paid for my experience. Q. Tell us something about that? A. I mentioned in my testimony a moment ago of running the McKinley Theatre, at 2212 South Jefferson Street. Just below me, I think one block and a half, or two blocks, is the Gravoise Theatre, owned by what is called or was called at that time The Crawford Syndicate. At this time I was running the Swanson-Crawford program of independent pictures, not paying only for what was called the "commercial service," why, I had to repeat everything after the Gravoise Theatre. I do not expect I had in all the time I was there, tea clear reels that had not been shown at the Gravoise before that, Q. With what exchange was The Crawford Syndicate affiliated? A. The Swanson-Crawford. Q. Have you had any experience as to competition or knowledge of competition where there were two theatres using licensed programs, one of which was owned or par tially owned by the representative or owner of a license. I exchange? A. Not that I ever knew of, no, sir.