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 #:
000404
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.

2854 Otto P. Hall, Direct Examination. Q. What other exchanges are there in Atlanta? A. The General Film Company, the Universal, the Mutual Film Corporation, Warner's Features, Eclectic features. Then there is some New York concern which has come in here, and is using a service similar to the General Film Company's. Q. Is that the Greater New York Film Kental Company? A. Yes, sir. Q. When did they arrive here? A. I believe they opened their office up today. Q. During the time you were in Jacksonville, what kind of service were you using? A. The Mutual, and the Universal. Q. How large a theatre was the Prince Theatre in Jacksonville? A. Five hundred and ten seating capacity. Q. And during the entire time that you were manager of it did you use the unlicensed service? A. With the exception of about two months. Q. And what two months were those, towards the beginning or the end of the time? A. Towards the end. Q. What was the character of the unlicensed program that you used in the Jacksonville theatre? A. I used three first run pictures a day, and by the character of the pictures do you mean — Q. No, I mean the age, I don't mean the character, I mean the age of them? A. They were first runs in Jacksonville, but sometimes reached us twenty days old. Q. Then you ran this sort of a program continually for some eighteen months? A. Yes, sir. Q. What competition did you have in that immediate vicinity? A. Had the Grand Theatre, and the Imperial Theatre, and the Savoy Theatre. Q. What was the service in the Grand Theatre? A. The licensed. Q. What was its seating capacity? A. Four hundred. Q. What was the service in the Imperial Theatre? A. Licensed. Q. The seating capacity was what? A. Six hundred. Q. What was the service in the Savoy, and the seating capacity? A. The licensed service for over a year. Q. Were the Grand, Imperial, and Savoy Theatres in your neighborhood? A. Within half a block.