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 #:
000384
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.

2834 Max Milder, Cross Examination. just the same as if the}' were the licensed films. They done business in the same manner as they had previously done business. Q. Was not the business done at that time in the same way it is done today? A. Yes, sir. Q. And it was just as important then to have a regular source of supply of films as it is today, is that not correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. Is it not true that all the customers of the Lake Shore Film Company at the time its license was cancelled were using the licensed service? A. Yes, sir, all the customers of the Lake Shore Film Company were using the licensed service at the time. Q. Did you go to the General Film Company at an advanced salary? A. No, I went at a reduction. Q. Were you fired by the Lake Shore Film Company? A. No, sir. Q. You went voluntarily to this other company at a reduced salary? A. Yes, because I knew I had a better opportunity. It was a larger concern, and it has been proven, and although the position was at a reduced salary, it has brought me more in the long run, and given me an opportunity to advance myself where I did not have the opportunity with the Lake Shore. Q. The Lake Shore Film Company was doing business in one location, that is, at Cleveland? A. Oh, no, sir; they shipped films throughout Ohio, and they shipped some into Pennsylvania. Q. And the Lake Shore Film Company was doing business, that is, you sa}^ it had an office in one place, namely, Cleveland? A. They had an office in Cleveland at that time. Q. And you felt that to go with a company that was opening branches all over the United States you would have a larger opportunity? A. I felt that the larger concern would give me a better opportunity to advance myself. Q. When you were with the Lake Shore Company when the customers came in, in regard to their service, in order to make bookings, did you deal with them? A. Frequently, yes, sir. Q. And did you make the bookings? A. No, sir. Q. If the Lake Shore Film Exchange promised an exhibitor a film on a definite date why was it not possible