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 #:
000374
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.

2824 Max Milder, Direct Examination which Mr. Mandelbaum was interested? A. The Glenside, and the two theatres in Elyria, and also the Loraine at Cleveland was operated by them at that time. Q. Did yon receive any complaints from the managers of any of these theatres in which Mr. Mandelbaum and Mr. Schachtel were interested to the effect that they could not get the service that they were promised. Mr. Grosvenor: I object to that question as calling for the contents of documents, and as being hearsay. By Mr. Kingsley : Q. You may answer? A. No, sir. There was no chance for objection on the part of the managers. They received the chance to pick what they wanted. Q. What sort of service was supplied to the theatres in which Mr. Schachtel and Mr. Mandelbaum were interested? A. I do not think there was any service designated for any of the houses, just the pictures they needed. Q. They got what they wanted? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you ship it to them? A. Yes, sir. As a matter of fact I had charge of the American Theatre, at Elyria, for Mr. Mandelbaum. Q. What kind of service were you giving the American Theatre? A. For fifty dollars we were giving it a service that was ordinarily worth a hundred dollars. Q. After the cancellation of the license of the Lake Shore Film Exchange what supply of motion pictures did you have on hand with which to supply the exhibitors? A. We had the stock of licensed films that were left over after the cancellation, and the new films that we were purchasing at that time. Q. Were these licensed films in the possession of the Lake Shore Film Exchange under the conditions of the license agreement? A. Yes, sir. Q. Were they rented from the producers of the licensed pictures? A. To the best of my knowledge, that is the understanding. Q. Is it your testimony that these motion pictures in the possession of the Lake Shore Film Exchange were leased to exhibitors instead of being shipped back according