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 #:
000507
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.

Theodore W. Williams, Direct Examination. 2953 you mean you do not understand the question? A. I under * stand you asked me if I had told any exhibitor that was getting service from the Greater New York that they had better get it from the General Film Company. Is that the idea? Q. As the Greater New York Film Rental Company would no longer receive any films? A. Yes, I understand you. No, I never did. Q. Did you tell any of them not to wait until such time as the films would no longer be supplied by the licensed manufacturers to the Greater New York Film Rental Company? A. No. Q. In point of fact, did yon at any time visit any great number of customers of the Greater NewT York Film Rental Company? A. Well, not in particular. As I went through different territories, I would stop and see exhibitors. Even if we were serving them, I would drop in and say, "Hello, how are things." Q. Do you remember getting the business in Newark of Meyer & Singer? A. Yes. Q. What did Meyer & Singer say to you in reference to the service that they wTere getting from the Greater New York 3 Film Rental Company, if anything? A. Their houses were scattered, as near as I can recollect, I think from Bayonne, Newark and Roselle, and I figured it would be better if they did get their service from the General Film Company from the same office as their opposition, so that we could divide the service, and they would not conflict. You see, if one theatre got it from the General Film Company and the other from the Greater New York, the two different offices might both give the same theatres the same picture on the same day. Q. Answering my question now, did these gentlemen, or 4 either of them, make any statement to you as to the character of the service that they were getting from the Greater New York Film Rental Company? Did they say whether they were satisfied or not? Mr. Grosvenor: Objected to as leading. The Witness: Why, yes, they were eager to get with us.