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 #:
000436
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.

1054 A. J. Clapham, Cross Examination. Film & Supply Company? A. I was not a stockholder of record. Q. Were you the principal owner of the Independent Film & Supply Company? A. I was not a stockholder of record. I did not own any of the shares of stock. Q. I did not ask you that. A. I was not a shareholder. Q. I am asking you if you were not the principal owner of it? A. I was the power behind the throne, but I was not a shareholder. Q. And this Independent Film & Supply Company regarding which you have testified you were the power behind the throne, was not a licensed exchange? A. Not to my knowledge. Q. It was dealing in unlicensed films, was it not? A. Yes, sir. Q. Mr. Lawrence left your employ, you say, to take charge of the Independent Film & Supply Company? A. Yes, sir. Q. He did it with your consent, did he not? A. Yes, sir. Q. And he made reports to you as to the profits of the business? A. Yes, sir. Q. And this was while you were conducting the licensed exchange known as the Theatre Film Service Company of San Francisco? A. Yes, sir. Q. I show you, Mr. Clapham, a letter on the letterhead of the Theatre Film Service Company, 76 and 78 Second Street, San Francisco, California, dated January 8th, 1910, and ask you if it is your letter, signed by you (handing paper to witness)? A. (witness examining paper): Yes, sir. Mr. Kingsley : I offer it in evidence. The paper identified by the witness is marked Defendants' Exhibit No. 28, and is as follows: