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 #:
000373
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.

Max Milder, Direct Examination. 2823 Q. You mean by that fourteen a week? A. Yes, sir. Q. How many releases of unlicensed motion pictures per week were available at that time? A. I think there were at least twenty-five to twenty-eight reels available for use at that time. Q. How long did you remain in the employment of the Lake Shore Film Exchange after the cancellation of the license in March, 1911? A. Oh, five or six months. Q. Then what did you do? A. I went to the General at Columbus, Ohio. Q. By "General'' do you mean the General Film Company? A. Yes, sir. Q. During the time that the Lake Shore Film Exchange was handling the licensed motion pictures did Mr. Emanuel Mandelbaum own or have an interest in any theatres in Cleveland, or its vicinity? A. Yes, sir, he operated I think five or six in Cleveland, and in suburban towns around Cleveland. Q. What theatres did he have there the names of which you can now recall? A. He operated in connection with Mr. Schachtel, who was kind of an assistant manager of the Lake Shore Film Company, or assistant to Mr. Mandelbaum, and they operated in connection with each other, the Glenside Theatre on Woodland Avenue, the American Theatre at Elyria, Ohio, forty -five miles from Cleveland, and had another theatre at Elyria. Q. What work did Mr. Schachtel do for the Lake Shore Film Exchange as assistant manager? A. Mr. Schachtel solicited the business on the road for them, and endeavored to fix up the difficulties that arose between the customers and the exchange. Q. You say Mr. Schachtel endeavored to fix up difficulties. What sort of difficulties do you refer to? A. Mr. Schachtel solicited the business on the road, and ordinarily promised more than he could give to them. Q. As shipping clerk of the Lake Shore Film Exchange did you have any knowledge of the difficulties of fulfilling the contracts made by Mr. Schachtel on behalf of the exchange? A. The only thing I knew was that customers came in and would say they were promised a twenty-five day service, or a thirty day service, and they never gave that class of service. Q. Was Mr. Schachtel interested in any of the theatres in