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 #:
000380
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.

2830 Max Milder, Direct Examination. exchange, does he pay any attention to the physical aspect and condition of the reel? A. Not at all. Q. When an exhibitor selects a motion picture at your exchange, does he select the motion picture he wants by physical examination and inspection of the reels, or by stating the kind of play he desires, and the type of audiences he must amuse? A. By the plays he desires and the type of audiences he amuses. Q. Do you know the rule which prevails in the unlicensed exchanges with respect to the price of motion pictures, and by that I mean, is it the same or a different rule from that which prevails in the licensed exchanges? A. Their rule is the same as ours. Q. When numerous copies of a motion picture are in use in a given neighborhood, does it lose value more rapidly on that account? A. Yes, sir. Q. What is the reason for that? A. The more people that see it, the less the picture is going to be worth. Q. Would you say that if five copies were out, that the feasibility of exhibiting the subject would decrease more rapidly than if one copy of the subject was out? A. Yes, sir. Q. Would you say that as the number of people who have seen a motion picture in a given territory, increases, the value diminishes? A. Yes, sir. Q. Is the price of a copy which has never been in actual physical use determined by the release date? A. Yes, sir. Q. As manager of the New Orleans branch of the General Film Company what authority is given you with respect to securing pictures and making up the programs? A. I have complete charge of the New Orleans office buying what I think are the best subjects that will please my customers, and cancelling the releases I feel I can't use. Since I have been in charge of the office I have never had any one call me for anything I have done from the New York office with reference to buying any particular makes. I buy just what I want, and discontinue or cancel the subjects I do not want. Q. When you say you have never had anyone "call you," what do you mean by that? A. I have never been told what to buy and what not to buy. I have bought what my customers wanted down there, and have cancelled the subjects that they refused to use. Q. Have you found it necessary to cut down your orders