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 #:
000621
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, Cross Examination. 1239 Q. Wasn't he in all probability president of the Crawford Film Exchange at that time? A. Now, I cannot state definitely about that, because of the reorganization previous. Q. Were you the manager of these two exchanges? A. I was officially the manager of one only. Q. Did you occupy most of your time in the affairs of this one of which you were officially manager? A. Most of my time, yes. I represented seventy-five per cent, of the stock in the Crawford Exchange. Q. That was the Western Film Exchange? A. The one that I was manager of, yes. I represented seventy-five per cent, of the stock of the Crawford Exchange, consequently was in direct touch with their business operations. Q. There was, as a matter of fact, no real competition between the Western Film Exchange and the O. T. Crawford Film Exchange Company, was there? A. Certainly there was. Absolutely. Q. That is, you were the manager of the one? A. Yes, sir. Q. And you represented seventy-five per cent, of the stock of the other? A. I did, yes, sir. Q. And yet you say there was a very vigorous competition existing between these two? A. What do you mean by competition? Q. Competition. A. Do you mean price-cutting? Q. Yes. A. I would say no. It was the effort of the two companies to handle as much business in the territory as possible. Against the independent movement. Q. Then what you mean by competition between these two customers was that each of them was striving to get as much business as possible in the territory covered? A. Exactly so. Q. But not by cutting prices as against each other? A. That is right. The employes and the active management of each office had nothing to do with each other. And the ownership of stock was just the same as if you would own stock in the Standard Oil Company of New York and California. Q. On the same basis? A. Just the stock ownership. It had nothing to do with the employes. Q. The operations of these two film exchanges extended over several States, did they not? A. Yes. Q. And the motion pictures which were sent out from