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)

Page scan 000410 from 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 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 #:
000410
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 12, 2024
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.

2860 William T. Murray, Direct Examination. the Consolidated Film Exchange bought ont the Dixie Film Company, which made it very unsatisfactory, and we had to quit taking service from the Consolidated Film Exchange on account they would — Mr. Olenoh was manager of the Consolidated Film Exchange and owned the Savoy Theatre, and he would take and run over the stuff up there and pick out the best reels and send them to the Savoy Theatre, and I had to take what they left. So at that time I could not get service from the General Film Company because they claimed that if they gave me reels over there, they could not give me reels away from the other theatre, and they had rather not supply me there because it would work a hardship on me and also on the other theatres, but later on, the Montgomery Theatre came down here and opened up on the north side. Before that, the Alcazar was the only one using licensed service on the north side, and the Vaudette on the south. When the Montgomery opened up, I went over to see the General Film Company and they told me they were going to start getting about 3G prints here and that they could furnish me, providing I could choose with one of the theatres on the north side, and the Vaudette would have to do the same thing. So since that the service has always been very good, and I have always — they have always treated me very nice at the General Film, and I have never had a complaint, no way in the world. Q. Have they kept you apart from your competitor except in the manner you have described? A. Now, when the Kinetograph Company opened up here, I went to the Kinetograph Company and at that time the General Film Company was supplying the Montgomery, and the Kinetograph Company was supplying the Alcazar and the Alamo, and at that time, why, of course, we conflicted on the programs, because the Montgomery would either run with me or with the Alcazar every day. Q. When the Kinetograph Company was operating here in Atlanta, was there a considerable conflict of the programs? A. Well, of course they had another house here, you know, and the1 General Film Company was trying to get as much business as they could, and the Kinetograph Company was 1 i-ying lo get as much business as they could. They were fighting over it pretty bad. Q. Aside from that, was there a considerable* conflict of