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 #:
000378
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.

2828 Max Milder, Direct Examination town of Placamon, there are two theatres operating with the Mutual program exclusively; the Opera House of the town seats 700. And a smaller picture show there called the Golden Rule, which operates occasionally. They are both owned by the same man, Lyman Delacroiux. When he runs a show at the Golden Rule, he rings us up and gets three or four reels from us, but he runs the Mutual program exclusively in the large house. Gulfport has two houses, the larger of wiiich is operated by independent service. In New Orleans the houses are about equally divided. Q. How many theatres did you say you were serving in that territory? A. About 145. Q. And how many theatres are there altogether in that territory, approximately? A. I think it will run close to 300 in my territory. The territory is not divided the same way with the independents as it is with the licensed exchanges. They have more territory than we have, but the number of shows in our territory that we are supplying and they are supplying will reach about 300 all told. Q. What sort of theatres do you refer to in this list of 300? By that I mean are any of them occasional shows which are open weekly? A. The greater part of them are open daily. We have a number of them that are operated just once or twice a wTeek, and so have the independents. Q. When you were with the Lake Shore Film Exchange in Cleveland, what was the situation with respect to supplying exhibitors a fixed definite program in advance? A. There was absolutely no way that we could give a man with whom we were doing business, an advance program. A man would frequently write to us or call us up or come into the office to see us, and request a certain film for use at a given time, which he sometimes got and sometimes did not. It was an uncertainty. We could not guarantee anything at the time. Q. What was the situation in this respect at the branch of the General Film Company in New Orleans when you went there? A. When I went to New Orleans, we operated what we term or call a schedule system of booking, which gives a man an opportunity to get a definite program for a week, or two or three, or as far ahead as we can get advance notice of the releases. Q. What governs the price of motion pictures to the exhibitor? A. The age of the service. Q. When you furnish a motion picture service to an ex