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 #:
000388
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.

2838 E. Boehringer, Direct Examination. cago, Philadelphia, New Jersey, and New York? A. Yes, sir. Q. And from snch other places as the factories may be located? A. Yes, sir. Re-examination by Mr. Kingsley : Q. How many releases was the Lake Shore Film Exchange taking at the time of the cancellation? A. They were using about, anywhere from twenty-one to twenty-five. Q. Assuming that your exchange could obtain no more 2 licensed pictures and you were free to go on and do business at your present location, could you obtain a complete program of motion pictures notwithstanding from some other source? A. Yes, sir. I operated two and a half years in Kansas City without ever buying a new film. Q. At the time the license of the Lake Shore Film Exchange, in Cleveland, Ohio, was cancelled were the independent producers of motion pictures offering complete programs at that time to theatres? A. Yes, sir. Q. And were they selling to rental exchanges? A. Yes, sir. Just the same as the licensed manufacturers were. Thereupon, E. ROEHRINGER, the next witness produced by the defendants, of lawful age, being first sworn by the Examiner, deposed as follows: Direct examination by Mr. Kingsley: Q. Where do you live, Mr. Boehringer? A. Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Q. How long have you lived there? A. Since the first of May, 1907. Q. In what business are you engaged? A. The moving picture business. Q. Are you an exhibitor? A. Yes. sir. Q. Do you own a theatre? A. Yes, sir. Q. What is the name of it? A. I own two at the present time, the Columbia Theatre, and the Dreamland Theatre, both in Baton Rouge. Q. What is the seating capacity of the Columbia? A. Four hundred and ninety-nine.