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 #:
000440
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.

1058 Joseph Hopp, Direct Examination. JOSEPH HOPP, a witness subpoenaed by the petitioner, being first duly sworn by the Examiner, testified as follows : Direct examination by Mr. Grosvenor: Q. Where do you reside, Mr. Hopp? A. 450 West Wrightwood Avenue, Chicago, Illinois. Q. Mr. Hopp, where were you doing business in the years from 1908 to 1910? A. In the City of Chicago, State of Illinois. Q. In what business were you engaged? A. Rental exchange; film rental exchange. Q. Please state the name of your company? A. Standard Film Exchange, an Illinois corporation. Q. Were you the principal manager and owner of that company? A. Not at that time. I was the manager and half owner at that time. That is, half the stock. Q. You were the active man directing the business of the company? A. Yes, sir. Q. Was your company a member of the Film Service Association in the year 1908? A. Yes, sir. Q. You may state whether your rental exchange took out a license from the Patents Company in the early part of 1909 after the Patents Company was organized and commenced doing business? A. We did. Q. Did you attend a meeting of the Film Service Association, or a meeting of the rental exchanges held at the Hotel Imperial in the early part of January, 1909? A. I did. Q. Was that the meeting at which the printed forms of the socalled Rental Exchange License Agreement were submitted to the rental exchanges? A. Yes, sir. Q. You may state whether most of the manufacturers in the country, that is, manufacturers of film doing business in the country at that time, and also the principal importers, joined the Patents Company and took out licenses from that company. A. All that were known to me did, yes, sir. Q. You may state whether or not the fact that practically all manufacturers and importers of the motion picture films had joined the Patents Company, had any effect on you in inducing you to take out one of these rental exchange license agreements with the Patents Company in the early part of 1909?