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 #:
000383
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, Cross Examination. 2833 from the various manufacturers who supply your branch at New Orleans? A. I buy forty-four reels a week. Q. How large a supply of reels do you keep on hand? A. I keep a six months' supply on hand all the time. Q. If the source of supply, namely, the forty-four newreels a week, were cut off, could you go on doing business for a very long time with the six months' supply that you retain? A. Yes, sir, I could cut the service down if I thought my business would not justify me buying as many reels as I do, and cut it to twenty-one and do business the same as we are doing with forty-four. Q. You did not understand my question. If the total source of supply of your forty-four reels was cut off, so that you could get not a single further film, not one, from any of the ten licensed manufacturers, could you continue for a long period of time doing business with the six months' supply of reels you have on hand? A. Yes, sir, we could do it for some little time. Q. For how long a time? A. It would be a hard matter to say. After all of the exhibitors in our territory would have used up those films it would not be any good in that immediate vicinity. Q. It would have a very serious effect on your business would it not? Mr. Kingsley : I object to the question, as speculative, immaterial, conjectural and hypothetical. The Witness : I don't think we could last any length of time, if we didn't buy some new stock right along. By Mr. Grosvenor : Q. When the Lake Shore Film Exchange license was cancelled, was not that exchange doing business in the same way that you are doing business, that is to say, it was receiving a daily or weekly supply of new films? A. Yes, sir. Q. Was it possible for an exchange at that time any more than it is today to go on doing business with its customers for any length of time after its regular source of supply was cut off? A. They continued because they went out and bought other films. They bought other subjects