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 #:
000448
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.

10G6 Joseph Hopp, Direct Examination. 1 that you would be permitted to supply these houses after a bona fide transfer of their ownership to other parties. Yours very truly, MOTION PICTURE PATENTS COMPANY, ByM. HNM/AL. 2 By Mr. Grosyenor: Q. Mr. Hopp, are there any facts which you care to add in connection with these letters in regard to the matters referred to therein? A. There are some that I could add. Have you reference to that last letter, where I was required to pay a thousand dollars fine? Q. Well, let us take that one. Take Petitioner's Exhibits 187 and 188. A. Well, in reference to this letter from the Motion Picture Patents Company, signed by Mr. Marvin, Vice-President, September 15th, 1909, I can explain what that business was up there at Sioux Falls, South Dakota. The office up there, the Standard Amusement Company, was in existence at the time of the formation of the Patents Company, or rather, prior to its formation, or at least, its announced existence. The Standard Amusement Company was a theatrical enterprise, or rather, the Standard Amusement Company was a South Dakota corporation owning several places of moving picture exhibition. I was one of the stockholders of that company. The Standard Film Exchange had what in those days was known as a distributing office, shipping films from its Chicago office to a Sioux Falls, and Mr. Thompson there distributed films. I was summoned over to the office of what was then known to the trade as the Western Committee of the Motion Picture Patents Company — Mr. Kingsley (interrupting) : I object to the expression "summoned over." The Witness: Well, I was summoned. I was ordered over, peremptorily ordered.