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 #:
000441
Language:
English
Collection:
Government & Law and Early Cinema
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.

Joseph Horr, Direct Examination. 1059 Mr. Kingsley : I object to that question as sug 1 gestive and leading. The Witness: It did. Q. How so? A. The mere fact that it had the only films that were available at that time. Q. Were objections made by the rental exchanges at this meeting in January, 1909, against these license exchange agreements? A. Some of the exchanges represented at that particular meeting made objections in some form or another. Some did not. Q. After you took out your license agreement with the Patents Company, did you do business renting motion picture films during the years 1909 and the larger part of 1910, according to the terms of those agreements, to the best of your ability? A. I did. Q. About when was it that the General Film Company, defendant in this case, entered upon the business of renting films? A. As the General Film Company? Q. To the best of your recollection? A. I think it was in the early part of 1910. Q. Now, up to September, 1910, you may state whether or ~ not any of the licensed exchanges doing business in Chicago, had been acquired by the General Film Company? A. All but two. Q. All but two had been so acquired? A. Yes, sir. Q. And what were those two? A. All but three. I want to correct that. Q. Now, you may state whether or not you had any conversations in the Summer of 1910 with any of the so-called licensed manufacturers in relation to or in regard to the formation of the General Film Company and its entering upon the rental exchange business? A. Well, I had conversations 4 with two or three at different times. Q. Please name the manufacturers? A. There was only one manufacturer. The others were representatives. Mr. William Selig was the only manufacturer that I remember at this time having a conversation with. Q. Who else? A. Mr. Montague, at that time representing Patlie Freres, and Mr. Moore, I believe, representing the Edison Company, if I remember correctly. Q. Are these the Chicago representatives of the two com