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 000212 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 6
Leaf #:
000212
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.

3240 Aaron Brylawski, Direct Examination. the Crescent theatres, all in one neighborhood. That is, the Colonial was on Pennsylvania Avenue, No. 927, the Cosmos was on Pennsylvania Avenue, No. 921, and the Crescent was on Pennsylvania Avenue, No. 919, and the Pickwick was on Pennsylvania Avenue, No. 911, and the Palace was right around the corner from Pennsylvania Avenue, at No. 307 Ninth Street. Q. So that, by September of 1909, you had five motion picture theatres in the immediate vicinity of each other? A. Yes. sir. Q. Now, while you were managing these five motion picture theatres in the Autumn of 1909, from what rental exchange did you secure service? A. From the Actograph Company, for a part of them, and from Miles Bros, for another part, and from the Imperial, of Washington, and Baltimore, for the other part. Q. While 3^011 were obtaining motion picture service for these five theatres from the four exchanges you have mentioned, did you have any difficulty with respect to conflicting programs and repeaters? A. All the time. {£. Well, will you tell us something about your experience in that respect? A. The experience was such that 1 was compelled to dismiss them all, and confine myself exclusively to the Actograph Company. Q. Did you find after you confined yourself exclusively to the Actograph Company that you could avoid much of the difficulty which resulted from the duplication of programs and repeaters? A. I could have avoided it if I had not had competition. Q. Were these competitors being supplied by other exchanges? A. Yes, sir, immediately opposite us. (2 What was the situation with respect to competition between you and your competitors who were supplied by other exchanges after you began to take your exclusive service for all of your theatres from the Actograph Company? A. We were in continual competition. The same reels Ave would show on one day, they would insist upon showing on the same day. Q. Did you afterwards advertise your program in advance? A. In 1910 I got out a little magazine to show what our different theatre programs were for the week.