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 #:
000568
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.

3010 H. M. Newsome, Direct Examination. any, in Birmingham, at that time? A. One other exchange, the Theatre -Film Supply Company. Q. Was that a licensed exchange? A. Yes, sir. Q, Who were the principal owners of that exchange? A. Boone & Bailey. Q. You may state, if you will, what the character of the competition was between you and the Theatre Film Supply Company? A. Well, the competition was pretty keen. Q. What do you mean by "pretty keen?" A. Well, there was not a great deal of film rental business in that territory, and two exchanges were too much. Q. State what each of you did in order to get business? A. Well, we cut and slashed prices and took each other's customers at most any price we could get them at. Q. How long did that state of affairs continue as between these two exchanges? A. Well, I believe until November or December of that year. Q. What happened then? A. Why, we consolidated in a way, the two exchanges did. Q. Explain in what way you did consolidate? A. Well, we organized a holding company, and transferred the stock of the two exchanges to the holding company. Q. What was the name of the company? A. The Southern Amusement & Supply Company. Q. And did you, as owner of substantially all of the stock of your exchange, exchange that stock for stock in the Southern Amusement & Supply Company? A. Yes, sir. Q. And did Messrs. Bailey & Boone, who owned the stock of the Theatre Film Supply Company, do the same thing? A. Did likewise, yes, sir. Q. Did you have the control or majority of the stock? A. No, sir. Q. Flow was the control of the Southern Amusement & Supply Company divided then, equally? A. No, the parlies owning the Theatre Film Supply Company got the majority of the stock. Q. Now, what happened after this consolidation, so far as competition between the two exchanges was concerned? A. There still existed a certain amount of competition, but, of course, it was not as keen as it was prior to that. Q. Was any agreement entered into between the two companies? A. That we would not cut prices.