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 #:
000408
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.

2858 John G. Evans, Direct: Examination. Q. Of what does your program consist? A. I run three first-runs daily. Q. And that makes a total of eighteen reels a week? A. Yes, sir. Q. All first-runs? A. Yes, sir. Q. Had your business been prosperous up to the time you changed from the licensed to the unlicensed service? A. Yes, sir. Q. And did your business continue to be prosperous after you changed from the licensed to the unlicensed service? A. Yes, sir. Q. Are you still using the unlicensed service? A. Yes, sir. Q. And does your business continue to prosper? A. Yes, sir. Q. Going back to the time when you were taking service from the General Film Company, did you have any experience of conflict of service with any competitor? A. Well, there was a duplication of the program for a while, at first — well, possibly for quite a while. Q. And did this duplication require some effort on your part to avoid it? A. Well, I did not object to it myself. Q. On what theory did you fail to object to duplication? A. Well, I don't know. I thought I could run a better theatre possibly. Q. Were you competing with your opponent vigorously at that time? A. Well, I could not say that I was competing. I was doing the best I could with my own business, and let the other man do the same with his. It was seeing who was the best, that was all. Q. What happened to your competitor? A. He changed service. Q. Did he take an independent service? A. I think so. I am not positive. Q. At that time, when you had this duplication of service, from what rental exchange were you obtaining service? A. I was taking it from the Theatre Film Supply Company. Q. And was your opponent taking service from the Theatre Film Supply Company? A. I think he was taking from the Birmingham Film Supply Company.