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 #:
000385
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. 2835 for the exchange to fulfill its promise? A. Because they had no way of figuring whether or not — well, they had no system, they had no way of conducting their business that was accurate. They were very lax in the things that they did. If they booked a film to a man, say, for use on next Thursday, perhaps it was shipped out of town on Wednesday, and possibly they kept no record of it, and it went elsewhere, and it was not returned in time for use on Thursday. Q. I am not asking you about what they did, but about the possibilities. Was it possible for the Lake Shore Film Company to supply a film on a definite date if it promised to do so? Mr. Kixgsley: One particular film? The Witness: One particular film or program? Thejr frequently promised a man a film on a certain day, and gave it to him. By Mr. Grosvenor: Q. And was there anything to prevent them doing it? A. Except the system of doing business, the laxity in it. There was nothing to prevent them in doing it if they had carried out their promises. Q. You didn't have charge of the booking, did you? A. No, sir. Q. Are there any distinct territorial lines which separate the territory of your branch office of the General Film Company from the territory of the neighboring branches? A. We practically work the State of Louisiana only, witli the exception of a few towns where shipments can be made better from our office than from the other offices. Q. Have you made up any list of the theatres embraced in your territory? A. No, sir. Q. How did you arrive at this number of three hundred that you testified to on direct examination? A. I have covered the territory, and I feel that I know there are an equivalent number of houses in the towns, or in the greater number of the towns that we are supplying, that are supplied by the other companies, and if our business would