United States of America v. Motion Picture Patents Company and others (1914)

Record Details:

Title:
United States of America v. Motion Picture Patents Company and others
Date:
1914
Publisher:
Washington, D.C. : United States. Government Printing Office
Volume:
United States of America v. Motion Picture Patents Company and others
Leaf #:
00028
Language:
English
Collection:
Government & Law and Books
Format:
Books
Contributor:
Media History Digital Library
Sponsor:
Media History Digital Library
Coordinator:
Media History Digital Library
Description:
Date Added:
December 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.

22 Mr. Karson, a Philadelphia exchange man, testified that 75 per cent of the theaters in Philadelphia are licensed (II, 1097, fol. 4). Defendants argue that the business done by the ten manufacturers must be looked at as part of the entire motion-picture business, and that a monopoly of the distribution of the business of the ten manufacturers does not constitute a monopoly of a part of trade and commerce within the meaning of the Sherman Act. This proposition we dispute. However, even if the business of the ten manufacturers should be looked at from the defendants' point of view and be considered in its relation to the total business, it is still manifest that the General Film Company does much more than half of the total motion-picture business in the United States. The only two competitors of the ten manufacturers who distribute film generally throughout the United States are the Mutual Film Corporation and the Universal Film Company. Mr. Frank L. Dyer, president of the General Film Company, a witness for the defendants, testified that the General Film Company's weekly service constitutes 61 reels, while 'the Mutual distributes only 26 a week and the Universal 28 (III, 1579, fols. 3-4, and 1580, fol. 1). The evidence of defendants in regard to the extent of the independent business was confined to testimony given by managers of the General Film Company and by certain of the defendant manu