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 #:
000249
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.

John F. Hexnegan, Direct Examination. 2001) turity? A. Promptly, and generally before maturity, one day before. Q. How many instalments now remain unpaid and undue? A. There are six instalments due. Q. Do you mean due, or to become due? A. Not paid. I did not mean due. I mean not paid. Q. During the time that you were operating the Magnetic Film Exchange you were interested in a theatre, were you not? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you regard it as a good thing for the owner of an exchange to be also the owner of a theatre? Mr. Grosvenor: I object to that as immaterial, and calling for the conclusion of the witness. The Witness: No, I do not. By Mr. Kingsley : Q. Did you, as the proprietor of the exchange and manager of the exchange, favor your theatre in any service during that period? A. Well, naturally that would be human nature to do that. Q. But did you do it, or did you overcome your natural impulse to do so? A. We paid for our service, we charged the service up, the theatre with the service, on an account at full value. Q. If there was any choice between your theatre and another theatre, which one had the preference? A. Ours, surely, all the time, as long as I would have had anything to say about it. Q. During the time you have been operating a theatre as an exhibitor have you ever used the unlicensed service? A. Yes, sir. Q. Have you used it for any considerable time, or from time to time? A. No, we didn't take that up until the Famous Players came there with their productions, and we regarded their pictures as very fine, and we put them on and run them one whole week. However, I did not dispense with the General Film service in doing that. Last week we run a Famous Players' production, "The Daughter of the Hills," and we run with it a licensed exclusive pic