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 #:
000368
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.

2818 Joseph M. Oummings, Direct Examination. stantial changes or modifications in its general policy and plan of procedure? A. I have not made any substantial changes. I think I have intensified the policy which — if that word will be allowed — the policy that prevailed already, in other words, I think that my talks with the customers convinced me that they thought they were being treated squarely, and my endeavor has been to make them think they were being treated more than squarely. Q. In making up a program of motion pictures for an exhibitor, do you put a different estimate as to the value upon the various pictures on the program? A. I do, yes, sir. Q. Will you explain your theory and your practice in making up programs for motion picture exhibitors? A. Well, I know that the Vitagraph releases, for instance, are intensely popular. We have forty-nine reels. Our idea is to get two programs a day of three reels each. That is six for each, times seven days, makes 42. Now, we have 49 reels from which to select those two 21-reel programs. I did this very thing not two months ago, endeavored to put the releases one for one, the more popular releases, if there is one more popular than the others, put them in one program, and get one equally as popular in the other. That squares that off. Then we have what is left. Taking the more popular reels, and seeing that each program contains the same proportion of what I know is the more popular reels. I want to say one more thing. I abandoned the purchase of four more reels lately, because they were more unpopular, and they could do no good to either side. Q. Now, after having prepared the program, you rent it as a complete program, do you not, in spite of the fact that you yourself put a different value upon the constituents of each program? A. Yes, if you will bear in mind that this division of program only becomes a point where we are selling two theatres. We try to have each theatre served on as nearly an impartial basis as possible. Where there is only one theatre being served in a town, it does not make very much difference from that man's standpoint what he gets, just as long as he gets good reels.