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 (1913)

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:
1913
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 2
Leaf #:
000613
Language:
English
Collection:
Early Cinema and Government & Law
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.

J. C. Graham, Direct Examination. 1231 Mr. Kingsley : Objected to as calling for a con 1 elusion of the witness. The Witness : This circular was issued by the Yale Film Exchange Company, who had, previous to August 1st, established their branch office in St. Louis. The contents of the circular will show that the trade was given to distinctly understand — Mr. Kingsley: I object to what the witness may state regarding the contents of the circular on the ground that the circular speaks for itself. By Mr. Grosvenor: Q. Start again and don't mind the interruptions. A. The Yale Film Exchange Company had established their branch in St. Louis previous to August 1st. Q. That is between July 20th and August 1st? A. Yes, sir. Q. Between those dates? A. Yes, sir, and the trade was distinctly given to understand that the licenses of the Western Film Exchange and of the O. T. Crawford Film Ex 3 change had been cancelled and that they were no longer in a position to do business with this Association film. Q. Please state whether or not the Western Film Exchange or the Crawford Film Exchange, whose licenses were cancelled on July 20th, 1910, had any earlier announcement than that contained in those telegrams to the effect that their licenses would be cancelled? A. Absolutely, no. Mr. Grosvenor: I offer this paper in evidence. Mr. Kingsley: Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial and as not binding on any of the 4 defendants. The paper referred to was marked by the Examiner "Petitioner's Exhibit No. 231," and is as follows: