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 #:
000411
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.

A. J. Clapham, Direct Examination. 1029 teen hundred dollars a week at the time my license was cancelled. Q. That is to say, that was the gross amount of your business? A. Yes, sir; the gross receipts. Q. Now, please state what occurred in connection with the supplying of films in February, 1910? A. Well, about February 10th, or 12th, I believe, the films stopped coming in. Q. And how had you been receiving films theretofore? A. I had been getting them right along, every morning. They stopped coming in, and I went over to the express company to find out if there were any there, and the agent of the express company told me he had several wires from the manufacturers authorizing or directing him not to deliver these films to me, but to return them at once; and I then wired to the different manufacturers, and could not get any answer, and I also wired the Patents Company, and couldn't get any answer, and then I got on the train and started for New York, and while going through New Mexico my office in San Francisco remailed a letter they received a couple of days after I left home, stating that my license was cancelled. The letter was dated February 8th, but was not received in San Francisco until about the 10th or 12th, or, probably a little later than that, and I came on East to New York to try to find out what the trouble was. I couldn't get any satisfaction. Q. Where did you go when you came to New York? A. Down to 80 Fifth Avenue, the office of the Motion Picture Patents Company. I stopped off, though, first, in Chicago, and saw Mr. Spoor and Mr. Selig, and they would not give me any satisfaction, and they told me to come on to New York and see the Patents Company. Q. Whom did you see at 80 Fifth Avenue, if anyone, in connection with this matter? A. I hung around here about two days, and then I finally saw Mr. Scull, and Mr. Marvin, at the office, and I believe that Mr. Kennedy was present also. Q. State whether or not any reason was assigned for the cancellation of your license? A. Well, they didn't give me any reason whatever down there. They brought up one or two matters down there that I did not think had any bearing on the subject whatever. Q. Please state whether or not you had paid for the films which you had theretofore received? A. Well, up to the time that my films had been stopped I didn't owe them anything. I used to pay my bills on Monday of every week fol 3