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 #:
000449
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.

Joseph Hopp, Direct Examination. 1067 Mr. Kingsley: I move to strike that out, as a 1 conclusion of the witness. By Mr. Grosvenor: Q. Who comprised that committee which you call the Western Committee? A. Mr. William Selig, Mr. George K. Spoor, and Mr. George Kleine. Q. Did you go over? A. Yes, sir; they called me on the 'phone and very tersely ordered me to come over. And I went. Several times. Q. Please state what happened? A. They asked me in 2 reference to the furnishing of one or two or possibly three certain theatres in the State of South Dakota. I informed them that I knew of one, but that the other two that I did not at that time know of, that they were being furnished. Mr. Kingsley: You mean with licensed film? The Witness: Yes, sir. The gentlemen stated they would be over some day to examine the books of the Standard Film Exchange in my place of business in the City of Chicago. One morning Mr. George Kleine, accompanied by 3 Mr. Montague, representing Pathe Freres at that time, came to my office and asked to see my books. I showed them to them. They made no statement to me at the time of leaving there, what conclusion they had arrived at, if any. However, following that, a very short time thereafter, I received tills letter signed by Mr. Marvin (indicating). By Mr. Grosvenor: Q. Petitioner's Exhibit 187? A. Yes; 1ST. I called Mr. George Kleine on the 'phone, with whom I was well ac , quainted. and told him of the receipt of the letter. He told me that he already knew of it. I told him it was a hardship on me to pay a thousand dollars, and I could not pay it. Q. You were fined one thousand dollars? A. One thousand dollars for conducting an unauthorized place of business at South Dakota. Because I had not taken out a license or received one. Q. Continue and state what happened. A. Air. George Kleine told me he would see what he could do. I ex