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 #:
000366
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.

2S1G Joseph M. Cummings, Direct Examination Q. And this you have done consistently since that time? A. Yes, sir. Q. You have no other interest in the business of the General Film Company except to carry out the order of the Court in accordance with the spirit in which it was made? A. No, sir. I am not an employe of the General Film Company. Q. Have you come in personal contact with any considerable number of the exhibitors whom }*ou are serving? A. I hardly think there is one whom I do not know personally now. Q. Have you made it a point to meet them personally, to listen to their statements, complaints and representations regarding the business? A. That is part of the daily grind. Q. Have you had any experience of one theatre coming to you and offering yon an additional price for service, providing you would take it away from its competitors? A. Not one, but two. Q. Will you tell us about that? Mr. Grosvenok: I object to this as immaterial. The Witness: We were serving one theatre with 21 reels at Dallas, and two others with 14 each, making the full output of 49 reels. A new theatre was built by a man who was a very good friend and customer of ours. He already had theatres using the licensed service in Oklahoma City, in Houston and in Galveston, and in a way I suppose he thought he had a pull. He opened this new theatre, a hundred thousand dollar theatre, in Dallas, and he was very anxious to use the licensed service there. We were getting $210 from the 21-reel theatre in Dallas. It was service equivalent to that that he wanted, and he offered us $250 for that. He offered us more from time to time if we would cancel the service of the 21-reel house and give that to him — and I declined to do it. The other instance was in Houston. We were serving two houses there — Q. There was another instance in Houston? A. Yes, sir. Q. And a similar offer was made to you under similar conditions? A. Except the price was varied. It was not the same price.