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 #:
000340
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.

2790 Cornelius D. Struble, Direct Examination. Kansis City? A. It was owned by a corporation, the Yale Film Exchange Company. Q. Was the Monarch Film Exchange in existence when you went to Oklahoma City? A. No, sir. Q. Did you start that branch? A. I did. Q. Then were you continually in the motion picture business from August, 1908, to January, 1912? A. I was. Q. Did the Monarch Film Exchange deal in licensed or unlicensed motion pictures? A. Licensed motion pictures. Q. Did the United Motion Picture Company deal in licensed or unlicensed motion pictures? A. Unlicensed. Q. What became of the United Motion Picture Company? A. It was absorbed by the Universal Film & Supply Company. Q. Is it still in existence? A. Yes, sir, that is I am informed it has been since I left there. Q. Is it still in existence? A. The office is still in existence. Q. Is there a motion picture exchange at the same place at the present time? A. I am informed there is. I have not been there since I left in January, 1912. Q. While you were the manager of the Monarch Film Exchange, did you have any difficulty with respect to subrenting on the part of your exhibitors? A. Yes, sir; we did, a great deal. Q. Will you tell us something about your experience in that respect? A. Well, I don't know that I can cite any particular instance. We were continually bothered about it. It was pretty hard to get evidence on the exhibitors. They would always, when we caught them, they would try to get out of it by saying that they had merely borrowed a program when their program didn't come in, or something of that sort, and where we found an exhibitor loaning films or shipping them to some other people for which he was not paying for the service we would either make him pay for the program, or discontinue the service to him. Q. Did your Monarch Film Exchange at any time violate the release day rule in an effort to favor customers? A. Yes, sir, we have. Q. What would that consist of? A. Well, that would consist of sending a reel out to an exhibitor before the advertised release date, that is, before the date set by the manufacturer when it was supposed to be released.