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 #:
000397
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.

Howell Graham, Direct Examination. 2847 Q. Did you continue to obtain service from the Theatre Film Supply Exchange at Birmingham until the General Film Company acquired its business, or not? A. Xo, sir. There was a space of several months that I obtained film from Memphis. From the Mitchell Film Exchange of Memphis. Q. Was that an independent service? A. No, sir; thar was a licensed service. Q. When was it that you returned to the Birmingham Exchange? A. I never returned to the Birmingham Exchange. Q. When was it that you began to take service from a branch of the General Film Company at Atlanta? A. Why, I continued with the Mitchell service until it had been acquired by the General, and then my supply was transferred from Memphis to Atlanta. Q. While you were taking your service from Memphis in the early part of 1910, and before you began to take your service from Atlanta, what was the situation with respect to being able to announce a definite fixed program in advance and to advertise the same to your constituency? A. Well, we had a very unreliable system of obtaining information, you see. Sometimes the films would not get into the exchange in time to get them off on certain trains for me and others were substituted, so there was really no dependable — no advertising that I could put out with any degree of certainty, the day before. Q. Did that condition continue until you began to take your service from Atlanta? A. Until I was able to tract1 films out of Memphis, because I was getting the whole program. I was getting everything they made, and managed to follow it up. I had the release dates, and after the General had acquired it, I was able to obtain it in that way. Through the lists that were furnished me by the manufacturers. Q. What is the situation now with respect to being able to get a program in advance? A. I am able to get a dependable program and know in advance what I am going to get, I am getting everything and can naturally depend on it. Q. Did you have a competitive situation at any time in your business prior to taking motion picture service from