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 #:
000398
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.

2848 Howell Graham, Direct Examination. the General Film Company? A. Yes, sir. The Theatre Film Supply Company of Birmingham opened a competitive house. Q. And by that do you mean a competitive theatre? A. Yes, sir. Q. Where was that competitive theatre opened? A. You mean in town? Q. Yes. A. It was in the same town, yes, sir. Q. In your immediate neighborhood? A. It was a block away. Q. What Avas the name of this theatre? A. Bonita. Q. What was the seating capacity of it? A. About 275. Q. What were the developments of that competition after the Bonita Theatre was opened? A. The house had been open but a very short time when I began to discover discriminations against my house. Q. In what did these discriminations consist? A. Preference in the selection of programs. Q. Did you make any change then in respect to obtaining service from another exchange? A. Yes, sir; I arranged to get service out of Memphis from the Mitchell Film Exchange. Q. What arrangements did you make with the Mitchell Film Exchange? A. Gave him money enough to justify him in buying the additional prints necessary to take care of my house. Q. What was the result of this new arrangement? A. Why, I am there yet, and the other one is not. Mr. Grosvenor: You mean the theatre is not? The Witness: The theatre is, but the Theatre Film Supply Company is not the owner. I have got the place — I am interested in the place myself. Mr. Grosvenor: You own the other theatre? The Witness: I am interested in it. By Mr. Kingsley: (c>. What arrangements did you find it necessary to make with Mr. Mitchell in order to meet this competition?