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 #:
000343
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.

Cornelius D. Struble, Direct Examination. 2793 We place our own orders for film and make our own cancellations. Q. At the time you were managing the Monarch Film Exchange, did you have any experience of a competing exchange offering an exhibitor especially good service if he would leaye your exchange and go to it? A. We have had them offer service of later date than we were giving, for less money, if that is what you mean. Q. I don't exactly mean that. I mean did you have any experience of a riyal exchange threatening an exhibitor unless he would take the seryice from them, that they would giye an exceptionally better service to one of his competitors? And thereby drive him from the field? A. Well, I recollect one instance. It was in the town of Enid, Oklahoma. There were three picture houses in that town at one time, and we were serving one, and the Little Rock Exchange was serving two, and the Little Rock Exchange went to our customer and threatened to put in first-run films, using the entire output of the licensed manufacturers, giying it to their two houses, if our customer did not switch to them. They knew at this time that all of our first run films were tied up by contract at Oklahoma City, and we could not protect our customer if we wanted to, and they did take away our account. Q. What exchange was that? A. The Mitchell Film Exchange. Q. At the time you were managing the Monarch Film Exchange, did you find it possible to supply a definite fixed program to the exhibitors so that they could announce and advertise the same in advance? A. We never tried it, no, sir. Q. Did you promise them definite fixed programs in advance, special seryice? A. Well, I don't exactly understand what you mean by special service. Q. I mean, did yon promise them sufficiently good treatment and consideration, and a seryice which would be favorable to them and would please their customers? A. In soliciting the business of a theatre, we usually promised them releases of a certain age, and we gave it to them as nearly as we could. Q. But did you find that it was usually impossible to comply with the promises that were made? A. Well, we sometimes could comply with them, and sometimes we could not.