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 #:
000533
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.

Walter \Y. R. Greene, Direct Examination. 21)77 Q. Well, then, the title should be the towns in the district in Georgia visited by you which have moving picture shows? A. Yes, sir. Q. That would be the correct heading for it? A. Yes, sir. Q. And this heading is incorrect? A. That was just typewritten by me for my own reference. Q. Well, as it stands, "Towns in Georgia with Moving Picture Shows," it is inaccurate? A. Towns covered by me in Georgia. Q. I say, it is inaccurate and should be amended in line with this suggestion? A. Yes, sir. Q. And in the next paragraph is "New, or on records of M. P. P. Co." What does that mean? A. Why, there were some towns that I found, I think ten in number, where there wrere picture shows that the Patents Company had no record of. Q. And those were added? A. Yes, sir, to the list. Q. And the other towns you found included in this list were put on the list of the Patents Company? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, this second sheet, Sheet No. 2 of Defendants' Exhibit No. 148, is headed, "Towns in Georgia, Over 400, with No Theatres." And that should be amended to read, towns in the district in Georgia visited by you of over 400 population, having no theatres? A. Yes, sir. Mr. Grosvenor: I object to the introduction of Defendants' Exhibit No. 148, Sheets 1 and 2, containing as it does inaccurate headings and therefore it should not be printed in the record with these inaccurate headings, as in such case the headings would be misleading and give the appearance of something being the fact which the witness has testified wTas not the fact. The Examiner: The witness is requested to place upon Defendant's Exhibit No. 148, Sheets 1 and 2, the proper headings. Thereupon the witness marked Defendant's Exhibit No. 148, Sheet 1, as follows : "Towns in Georgia within dotted lines on Defendant's Exhibit 147 having Moving Picture Shows. (New or on Records of M. P. P. Company.)" Thereupon, the witness marked Defendants' Ex