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 #:
000598
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.

3040 Defendants' Exhibit No. 161. Defendants' Exhibit No. 161. STATEMENT AS OF JULY 3, 1911, SHOWING NUMBER OP PLACES IN CITIES OF 100,000 AND OVER IN WHICH MOTION PICTURES WERE EXHIBITED. ( Separated as to Licensees and Non-Licensees of the Motion Picture Patents Company.) Non City Licensees Licensees Total Differences Boston, Mass. 20 10 30 10— Bridgeport, Conn. 11 9 20 2— Fall River, Mass. 4 1 5 3— New Haven, Conn. 4 8 12 4 Providence, R. I. 3 4 7 1 Worcester, Mass. 4 9 6 2— Albany, N. Y. 10 4 14 6— Allegheny, Pa. 0 2 2 2 Buffalo, N. Y. 36 22 58 14— Jersey City, N. J. 15 25 40 10 Newark, N. J. 38 28 66 lo New York, N. Y., inc. Brooklyn 298 240 538 ss— Paterson, N. J. 5 5 10 0 Philadelphia, Pa. 78 81 159 3 Pittsburg, Pa. 60 35 95 25— Rochester, N. Y. 11 6 17 5— Scranton, Pa. 8 9 17 1 Syracuse, N. Y. 8 10 18 2 Baltimore, Md. 32 53 85 21 Washington, D. C. 36 37 73 1 Chicago, 111. 165 175 340 10 Cincinnati, Ohio 36 31 67 5 Cleveland, Obio 56 52 108 4— Columbus, Ohio 30 10 40 20— Dayton, Ohio 18 23 41 5 Indianapolis, Ind. 31 21 52 10— Louisville, Ky. 10 11 21 1 Toledo, Ohio 15 25 40 10 Detroit, Mich. 31 21 52 10— Grand Rapids, Mich 5 3 8 2—