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 #:
000578
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.

3020 Anna S. Matthews, Direct Examination. the theatres on the list covering the same territory kept under your supervision and direction at the office of the Motion Picture Patents Company, and revised in July, 1913? A. The list revised July, 1913, showed nine hundred and fiftyone theatres exhibiting motion pictures in this territory. Q. Upon the basis of the checking made by Mr. Greene, how many moving picture theatres would there be in the territory covered by the exchange and its branches of which William C. Brandon is the manager? A. Eight hundred and eighty-four. Q. In making up this comparison, did you confine yourself to the towns in the State of Georgia, State of Alabama, with the exception of Mobile, the State of 'Florida, with the exception of Tallahassee and Pensacola, North and South Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas, and the northern part of Mississippi and a small portion of Kentucky, being exactly the territory served by the Atlanta branch of the General Film Company and its branches? A. Yes, sir, with the exception of in Mississippi and Kentucky we noted on the map all toAvns in which these exchanges had reported theatres using their service, and we included only those towns within the boundary of the towns reported by the exchanges. Q. You mean the boundary of the towns reported, or the boundary of the territory reported? A. Well, in getting at the territory we took the towns and drew the territory from one town in which they had reported a licensed exhibitor to another town, including all towns within that territory. Q. Were you careful to confine the comparison to exactly the territory covered by the Atlanta branch of the General Film Company? A. Yes, sir, and its branches. Q. And its branches? A. Yes, sir. Q. ITow many motion picture theatres are there in this territory, designated by the reports kept under your care and supervision, revised July, 1913? A. Nine hundred and fifty-one. Q. Comparing the result of your checking of the cities, towns and villages, of July, 1913, shown on Defendants' Exhibit IIS, with the result of Mr. Greene's checking in December, 1913, what difference is shown? A. A decrease of eight theatres exhibiting motion pictures.