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 #:
000355
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.

Henry R. Slocum, Direct Examination. 2805 a non-repeating program or a complete program. What we called a complete program, non-conflicting program. Q. You offered them a complete or non-repeating program? A. Yes, sir. Q. Of what did this program consist, the independent unlicensed film exclusively or the unlicensed and licensed film in combination? A. We were offering them our independent productions and what we had in stock of the licensed reels. Q. What difficulties did you have in taking on new customers and in holding the old customers after you went on the road for the Swanson-Crawford Film Exchange Company? A. In my particular territory I held the most of my customers, and my business grew. Q. Did you keep in touch with the progress of the business of the Swanson-Crawford Film Exchange Company? A. Yes, sir. Q. While you were with them? A. Yes, sir. Q. What was the situation after two months of active canvassing and operations in the field? A. We were doing a very nice business. Q. Do you recall how much business you were doing after sixty days? A. You mean what would I estimate it at? Q. Yes? A. I would say the office was doing a business of four thousand dollars a week, safely. Q. How long did you remain with the Swanson-Crawford Film Exchange Company after July 19th, 1910 — but I think we have already covered that? A. About a year and a half, I think it was. Q. You have already told us about that? A. Yes, sir. Q. During that time did your business prosper? A. Yes, sir, I should think so. Q. Did you continue to take on new customers? A. Yes, sir, all the time. Q. Were you able to furnish new customers with a complete program of unlicensed film, if they wished it? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you have any difficulty in supplying new customers with complete programs? A. No, sir. Q. Did you have any difficulty in supplying them with balanced programs? A. No, sir. Q. How many reels were necessary to constitute a non