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 #:
000442
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.

2 1060 Joseph Hopp, Direct Examination. panies named? A. At this particular time, Mr. Moore was at a meeting of the Film Service Association. Q. Please state what was said, to the best of your recollection, by Mr. Selig in regard to the purposes of the General Film Company and what it was going to do? Mr. Kingsley : Objected to as incompetent, immaterial and irrelevant, as hearsay, and not binding upon the defendants. By Mr. Grosvenor: Q. This Mr. Selig is the Selig of the Selig Polyscope Company? A. Yes, sir. Q. A Director in the General Film Company? A. Yes, sir. So I think. Q. Please continue. Mr. Kingsley : Same objection. A. Mr. Selig explained to me the objects and aims of the General Film Company, and what it hoped to accomplish in 3 the way of regulating — Mr. Kingsley (interrupting) : I object to the witness putting the statement in the form of a conclusion. I ask that he repeat the conversation. By Mr. Grosvenor: Q. State the conversation to the best of your recollection, giving the substance of what he said, in your own way? A. He told me they were going to regulate the rental business and 4 stop the difference in rentals between low and high prices, so far as it affected the exhibitor. That it was the only course to pursue. Those that were without the pale of the General Film Company would have to get out of business in due course of time as the result of acknowledgment of patent rights. Q. Was anything said about your selling your business out to the General Film Company? A. Yes. We dicussed it. There was nothing definite. We talked of it. Q. I show you a letter, dated September 22nd, 1910, on