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 #:
000393
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.

Otto Haas, Direct Examination. 2843 in one, and Universal in the other? A. No, sir; I mix them occasionally. Q. So that yon are running a mixed program in your three houses? A. Yes, sir. Q. How many reels are yon taking a week? A. Thirtysix from the licensed. Q. How many are you taking from the unlicensed? A. Eighteen. Q. And yon make the combination program of these 54 reels? A. Yes, sir. Q. Are there any other theatres in Charlotte? A. Yes, sir. Q. Motion picture theatres? A. Yes, sir. Q. What are they? A. Princess and Amnse-You. Q. What is the seating capacity of the Princess? A. About 200. Q. What is the seating capacity of the Amnse-You? A. One hundred and fifty. Q. What kind of a service do these two theatres run? A. The Princess is running the Warners Features, and the Amuse-You is running the Mutual. Q. From what rental exchange do you obtain your licensed motion pictures now? A. General Film Company, Atlanta. Q. Were you using the licensed motion pictures in 1910 in your theatres? A. Yes, sir. Q. From what rental exchange were you getting your service then? A. Theatre Film Supply Company, Birmingham. Q. At that time in 1910 when von were obtaining a licensed motion picture program from the Theatre Film Supply Company, at Birmingham, were you able to announce a program in advance and to advertise it in Charlotte? A. No, sir. Q. What was the situation with respect to getting your motion picture service at that time? A. I got a service, but I had to take, a good deal of the time, what I could get if my competitor did not ^et it from another exchange ahead of me. Q. Did you have conflicts in program at that time with your competitor? A. Frequently. Q. What would happen under those conditions? A.