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 #:
000362
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.

2812 Joseph M. Cummings, Direct Examination. censes, who only have one show a week, and we only furnish three reels a week to them. My recollection is there are about ten such. Q. But the 503 motion picture houses you have enumerated do not include any of the special exchange licenses? A. No. Not so far as I know. Q. Are there any additional licensed exhibitors in the State of Texas served with licensed motion pictures, other than those included in the 275 you have mentioned? A. Yes. By special order of the Court, certain towns in northern Texas were exempted from the jurisdiction of the Receiver, and certain towns in southern Texas came under the same order, and by that order, the Oklahoma City house was empowered to continue furnishing those in northern Texas, and the New Orleans house, those in southern Texas, on the theory that they could be served better by those nearer houses than by us, and that arrangement is in force to this day. Q. How many of such houses are there? A. Well, speaking in round numbers, I should say ten, and my recollection is that there are only one or two now in northern Texas served by Oklahoma City, and possibly not more than six served by New Orleans in the southern part. Q. At the time you took possession of the business for the Receiver, did the General Film Company have any travelling representative in the field? A. Yes, sir. Q. How many? A. One. Q. Did you continue to have a travelling representative in the field? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you increase your force in the field? A. As soon as the Houston office was opened in May, I put another man on to cover that territory — to be exact, the travelling representative in all of Texas for our exchange was given charge of the Houston office, which made me put a new man on the territory which we still served, and he appointed his man in the southern part of the State. Q. Do you have competition in Texas with unlicensed exchanges? A. Yes, sir. Q. What unlicensed exchanges are there in the State of Texas? A. The Mutual Corporation and the Universal, which has been known by the name of the Texas Film Corporation, and the Consolidated. It is generally known as the Universal now, however.