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 000436 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 #:
000436
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.

2886 Charles O. Baumann, Cross Examination. New York Motion Picture Company, is today distributed by the Mutual 'Film Corporation? A. Yes. Q. And the nine reels made by the New York Motion Picture Company constitute about one-third of the releases made a week by the Mutual Film Corporation? A. About one-third. Q. How many releases does the General Film Company make a week? A. I don't know\ Q. How many does the Exclusive Film Corporation make? A. They release about eighteen reels. Q. The Exclusive Film Corporation is a distributing agency, merely? A. Yes, sir. Q. Is Warner's Features a distributing agency? A. That is a booking agency. Q. Do they manufacture reels? A. They do not manufacture. Q. Then a large number of the reels that are made by the independent companies are distributed by either Warner's Features Company, or by the Exclusive Film Corporation? A. The two concerns are quite different, The Warner's Features Company is a corporation controlling a number of exchanges, or booking offices. The Film Corporation is one that handles the agencies for various pictures in marketing their product. Q. Isn't it a fact, then, that a large part of the output of the independent manufacturers is distributed through these two sources, or booked through these two sources, the Exclusive Film, and the Warner's Features? A. There is quite a supply from that source, or through that source. Q. Have you ever considered what is the weekly output of the General Film Company? A. I have learned. Q. Isn't that the largest distributing agency today? A. Yes, in my opinion. Q. Are you able to state how many they distribute? A. I am not. Q. A week? A. I am not. Q. Where did you ^et the information as to what is distributed by these various companies you named on direct examination? A. Having visited those offices frequently, and having been in close touch with those offices, and getting such information from them directly, while I