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 #:
000466
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.

291G Anna S. Matthews, Direct Examination Q. In the process of securing information regarding the theatres in the various towns checked, how many cards of inquiry or follow-ups did you send? A. You mean after the first request? Q. No, suppose you did not get any answer to the request, you then sent another request, did you not? A. Yes, sir. Q. Will you tell us just what you did, and give us the story of the whole process of checking up? For instance, if you sent a card and you didn't get a satisfactory reply, you took some other steps. Tell us what other steps you took after waiting a reasonable time for a reply? A. We first sent Form 298 to the City or Town Clerk, requesting a list of theatres. If we receeived no reply in a given time, we sent Form 311 to the Postmaster, requesting him to turn it over to the official prepared to give the information, and if no information was received Form 311 was sent to an exhibitor if we had a record of a theatre. If not, Form 452 was mailed to the City Clerk. If no reply was received, then Form 1G7 was mailed to the City or Town Clerk, or the Postmaster, or an exhibitor, or an express company, or a Justice of the Peace or to some other official in the town. Q. Did that exhaust the list of forms you sent out for information in checking? A. That is for the original information. When we received one of these forms back on which they did not give complete information we relisted the theatres already given on the return card on Form 299 and requested additional information on theatres indicated by a question mark, and if on the return card any theatres we had in our records were not listed, Ave listed the theatres not given on that return card, 313, and requested information regarding those theatres. Q. Do these forms contain the numbers on the cards themselves? A. Yes, sir, on some of them they are on the front of the card, and on the others, on the back. Q. Could you compile a list of those cards from any you have in your possession? A. Yes, sir. Q. Beginning with 298? A. 298, 311, 311, 152, 467, 299 and 313. Q. You have them there? A. Yes, sir.