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)

Page scan 000536 from 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 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 #:
000536
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 12, 2024
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.

2980 Walter W. R. Greene, Direct Examination. By Mr. Kingsley: Q. Did you in January, 1914, go to Ohio by direction of the Motion Picture Patents Company, and personally visit a number of cities and towns and villages to get an accurate list of motion picture theatres? A. Yes, sir, I did. Q. How many towns did you personally visit at that time? A. One hundred and twenty-nine towns personally visited. Q. How many towns did you check up by telephone? A. Approximately 37; I didn't keep a record of them. Q. What was the total number of motion theatres you found in the territory covered? A. Two hundred and twentytwo. Q. I show you a map of the State of Ohio, in which a large section within said boundary is enclosed by black lines. Were the towns you visited and the towns you checked located within the area bounded by this black line? A. Yes, sir. Mr. Kingsley : I offer this map of Ohio in evidence. The map offered in evidence is marked by the Examiner, "Defendants' Exhibit No. 149," but will not be inserted here, but copies of it will be inserted at this point in the revised copies of the record. By Mr. Kingsley : Q. Have you a list of the towns in Ohio which you visited and which you checked? A. I have. Q. Will you produce it? A. Yes, sir. Q. Is this a correct list? A. That is a correct list. Q. And does it contain both the towns that you visited and those which you checked up by telephone? A. The towns visited are included with theatres and without theatres. The towns telephoned to are included in the list of toAvns without picture shows. Mr. Grosvenor: I move to strike out the answer as being unintelligible. Mr. Kingsley : I offer it in evidence. The list offered in evidence is marked by the Examiner, "Defendants' Exhibit No. 150," and is as follows: