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 #:
000570
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.

3012 H. M>. Newsome, Direct Examination. 1 Q. Before? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you know a man named Acton R. Boone? A. Yes, sir. Q. Is lie the Boone of the firm of Bailey & Boone, you just referred to? A. Yes, sir. Q. As owning the Theatre Film Supply Company? A. Yes, sir. Q. I want to read you some questions that were asked of Mr. Boone when he was called as a witness by the Government in this case, and the answers which he gave to those „ questions, found at page 120G, Vol. II, of the record: "Q. What became of the Mitchell Company of Memphis, Tennessee? A. It sold to the General Film Company. Q. About what time was that, approximately? A. I judge that that was about the middle weeks of August. During the first of August. From the first to the 20th, perhaps. Q. What effect, if any, did the entrance of the General Film Company into the business of the film rental exchanges have upon the business of your company? A. The competition immediately became very severe. Mitchell, who was the former owner of the business, was made 3 manager by the General Film Company, and he at once engaged one of our managers who was conversant with our customers, what they paid on the films that they received, and he was instructed by Mitchell to go into our territory. Q. Tell us what this manager whom Mitchell hired did do? A. He went over our territory and cut prices in many cases as much as fifty per cent, of what we were receiving from those customers, with the result that we lost these customers to the General Film Company, and our rentals from the territory from that covered by him, were at once reduced very materially. Eventually 4 the rentals, the reduction in those rentals by cutting the price, brought us down to about the actual cost of operaing of the exchange and buying of films; in other words, we were close to a losing basis. Q. Did you come thereafter to New York, having in mind the subject of selling out your business? A. Yes, I came for the second time.'" Now, this price cutting, which you have just testified to. occurred before the sale to the General Film Company? A. Yes, sir, Mitchell is the man who cut the price before he sold to the General Film Company.