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 #:
000410
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:
June 13, 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.

1028 A. J. Clapham, Direct Examination. Mr. Henry Melville, attorney for George Kleine, Essanay Film Manufacturing Company, Selig Polyscope, George K. Spoor and W. N. Selig. Mr. James J. Allen, appearing for Vita graph Company of America, and Albert E. Smith. Thereupon, A. J. CLAPHAM, a witness subpoenaed on behalf of petitioner, of lawful age, duly sworn, deposes as follows : Direct examination by Mr. Grosvenor: Q. Mr. Clapham, in the early part of 1910 where were you doing business? A. San Francisco. Q. San Francisco? A. Yes, sir. Q. In what business were you engaged? A. Moving picture rental and supply business. Q. What was the name of the company with which you were connected? A. Theatre Film Service Company. Q. Were you one of the owners of that company? A. Yes, sir. Q. Were you the principal owner of the stock and manager of the Theatre Film Service Company in January and February, 1910? A. Yes. Q. You may state whether or not that was one of the socalled licensed rental exchanges, that is, whether it had a license, socalled, from the Motion Picture Patents Company? A. It did, yes. Q. How long had the Theatre Film Service Company had a license from the Motion Picture Patents Company? A. I believe from the inception of the Patents Company. Q. Please name the different manufacturers of films from whom you had been obtaining films just prior to January and February, 1910? A. I was buying from all of the licensed manufacturers. Q. That is, Lubin, and Selig, and Edison? A. Yes, sir. Q. And Essanay, Kleine, Biograph, etc.? A. Yes, sir. Q. And were the films shipped to your rental exchange, that is, to the office of the Theatre Film Service Company, from the several factories of these manufacturers you have named? A. Yes, sir. Q. About what amount of business were you doing each week in films? A. My rental business averaged about six