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 #:
000484
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.

2934 Defendants' E,xhibit No. 144. Q. How many new theatres did yon get from the checking of July, 1913? A. Eleven hundred and thirty-six. Q. How did the checking and investigation of October, 1910, differ from the subsequent checkings and investigations under your charge? A. In the October, 1910, checking we requested a list of theatres usually exhibiting motion pictures, and in all subsequent checkings we listed theatres as shown on our records, requesting corrections and additions necessary to bring the lists up to date. Q. At the close of the checking and investigation of July 1st, 1913, did you prepare, or have prepared under your supervision and direction, a list of the motion picture theatres, licensed and unlicensed, in the United States? A. Yes, sir. Q. Is this a correct copy of that list? A. Yes, sir. Mr. Kingsley: I offer it in evidence. Mr. Grosvenor: I reserve my right of objection until I have had opportunity to cross examine the witness in order to ascertain the authenticity and correctness of this copy, and the manner in which the original was prepared. The list offered in evidence is marked by the Examiner, "Defendants' Exhibit No. 144," and is as follows: Defendants' Exhibit No. 144. STATEMENT AS OF JULY 21, 1913, SHOWING NUMBER OF PLACES IN THE UNITED STATES IN WHICH MOTION PICTURES WERE EXHIBITED. Separated as to licensees and non-licensees of the Motion Picture Patents Company. State Licensees Non-Licensees Total Differences Maine 80 90 170 10+ New Hampshire ..36 40 70 4+ Vermont 33 29 G2 4— Massachusetts .... 1G9 202 371 33+ Rhode Island .... 24 23 47 1— Connecticut 84 107 191 23+ New York 916 730 1646 186— New Jersey 237 275 512 38 + Pennsylvania 650 738 1388 88+