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 #:
000367
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. Cumminos, Direct Examination. 2817 Q. Iii investigating the business of the General Film * Company, what did you learn about the methods of the company prior to the time of the receivership? A. I talked a great deal with Mr. Ezell — Mr. GboSVENOR : I object to this witness giving testimony of what he talked about with another man. The Witness: Mr. Ezell was the manager down in charge of the place, I believe for about fourteen months or longer. I questioned him very closely as to the policy he had pursued, and was glad to learn that he had acted in a fair, honest, straightforward way with the exhibitors; and as first one exhibitor and another came in, I managed to question them to find out whether Mr. Ezell's statements could be verified, and I have very strong evidence that he had so acted. Q. What did you learn with reference to conditions before the time the General Film Company opened an office in Texas, from the exhibitor's standpoint? A. The best way to describe it, in my opinion, is chaotic. They did not know from week to week, where they stood; what 3 price they would have to pay for material to keep their doors open; whether they would be able to keep their doors open or not; or what they would have. That was the condition generally. Q. Did you find that the General Film Company had changed this condition for the better after coming to Texas, and prior to the time of the receivership? A. I learned that was the first they knew where they were at, to use a common expression. They knew that they could depend upon the program, and that when they made arrangements for a program, that program was reasonably 4 certain as long as they wranted to take it. Previous to that time, I think they were rather afraid to invest any amount of money in a picture house. In the last year in Dallas, we have had four houses that cost over a hundred thousand dollars, a hundred thousand dollars or over, erected. And I am absolutely sure that those houses never would have been thought of under the old condition. Q. In operating the business of the General Film Company on behalf of the Receiver, have you made any sub