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 #:
000465
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.

Anna S. Matthews, Direct Examination. 2915 Q. What cities or towns were investigated when you checked your list on or about October 31st, 1910? A. All towns where the population exceeded eight hundred according to the 1900 census, and towns of less population for which we had a theatre card in our files. Q. That is to say, whether a town had 800 population or not, if you had information there was a theatre there or the card showed a theatre there, you checked that town? A. Yes, sir. Mr. Grosvenor: lias the lady testified when she began the work? The Witness: February, 1909. I might add, I was in charge all the time with the exception of a few months 1 was away. I was out on account of the illness of my mother. Q. Did you know the way the checking was carried on? A. Yes, sir. Q. At each one of these times you have referred to? A. Yes, sir, I Avas there. I had charge of the checking. Q. What was the method of investigation adopted when you checked your list on or about October 31st, 1910? A. In cities where an exchange was located, the exchanges were requested to furnish a list of theatres usually exhibiting motion pictures, with the exception of New York, where we procured from the Bureau of Licenses a list of theatres, and checked that with our records, and we had them personally investigated; and in Brooklyn, Jersey City, and Newark we procured lists of the theatres from the Bureau of Licenses, or City Clerks, and checked them with our records, and we investigated them, and for the other cities and towns we mailed Form Xo. 298, to the City Clerk, requesting a list of theatres usually exhibiting motion pictures. Q. Did you have any special way of checking up the theatres in a city? A. In Chicago we tried to procure lists from the exchanges, and from the Bureau of Licenses there, and we checked those with our records, and investigated them personally, too. Q. If you received no reply from a given town to the postal card of inquiry, what did you then do? A. We addressed Form 311 to the Postmaster, requesting him to turn the card over to the official prepared to supply the information.