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 #:
000356
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.

2806 Henry R. Slocum, Direct Examination. conflicting program in St. Louis in 1910 or a non-repeating program? A. What would yon call a "complete program" for a house, a non-repeating service on the place? Q. Yes. A. In the City of St. Louis, I can't say. I didn't have any of the city trade but I would say, yes, that it consisted of two or three reels a day. Most of the houses ran three reels a day in 1910. Q. And that made a satisfactory program? A. Yes, sir. Q. How many reels would a rental exchange be compelled to buy or to rent each week in order to furnish a program such as you have described? A. They would have to buy twenty-one reels, if putting on three a day, seven days in the week for the city, and for the country, eighteen reels. Q. So that if the Western Film Exchange was only renting twelve to fifteen reels it did not have sufficient reels to supply a program such as you have described? A. No, sir. They would have to give a repeating program. Q. And they would be compelled either to furnish a repeating program or to obtain reels of film from some other exchange? A. Yes, sir. Q. Or some other source? A. Yes, sir. Basing that, you understand, on a man running first run service, if he requires three reels a day it would take from eighteen to twenty-one of those reels to give him a non-repeating program. Q. Was the O. T. Crawford Film Exchange Company leasing more than enough reels for such a program at that time? A. That is the O. T. Crawford you speak of? Q. Was the O. T. Crawford Film Exchange Company leasing more than twenty-one reels? A. Yes, we were leasing from eighteen to twenty-four reels. Yes, I would say they were. Q. Mr. Slocum, do you have competition with the unlicensed exchanges in your field at the present time? A. Yes, sir. Q. What is the situation in that respect? A. Well, in what way do you mean? Q. I would like to know first, whether they furnish a complete program? A. Yes, sir. Q. And what company or companies furnish that complete program? A. The Mutual Film Corporation, and the Universal, are our opposition companies.