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 #:
000365
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.

Joseph M. Oummings, Direct Examination. 2815 and the exhibitors were notified that the payments were expected by Friday of that week. That has been done, but as in the previous case there has been no particular insistence that this rule should be adhered to and really the customers are paving just as they have always done, which means they are probably a week behind time. Q. Do you have any competition with the feature film service in Texas? A. Yes, sir. Q. How does it affect your business? A. Well, it has taken one of the biggest theatres in Dallas away from the market for the regular — what I call the standard program. I call the standard program the daily releases of the reels. Q. Do you handle any unlicensed film yourself at your exchange? A. No, sir, we do not. Q. Do you know upon whose suggestion Mr. Wroe was appointed Receiver of the property, assets and business of the General Film Company in Texas? A. The Attorney General of Texas, I should say. Q. Do you know whether or not he was appointed by agreement between the General Film Company and the Attorney General of the State of Texas, or merely upon the recommendation of the officials of the State of Texas? A. Merely upon the recommendation of the Attorney General of the State of Texas. The General Film Company knew nothing about the matter, I suppose. Q. Now, acting as the representative of the Receiver were you directed to go on and make a vigorous campaign for business, and to operate the business of the General Film Company with the desire to conserve its assets and to strengthen its resources? A. The order of the Court, as I recall it, empowered the Receiver to take charge of and to conduct the business as he saw fit, to buy the reels in the open market as he saw fit, and to hire such employees, and so on, the usual thing, I think. Q. I should gather that he was intended to conduct the business, but you have no doubt that the order of the Court gave the Receiver full power to go on and conduct the business according to his best judgment? A. Yes, sir, that is so. Q. To use his best judgment, and his best judgment was that you should go on and actively compete for business in the State of Texas? A. Yes, sir.