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 #:
000450
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.

1068 Joseph Hopp, Direct Examination. plained the situation. At that time the gentleman who owned half of the Standard Film Exchange had died, and his widow, Mrs. Welch, of course, got his half interest. I represented to Mr. George Kleine at the time that the payment of this thousand dollars or anything of that kind would be a hardship, that Mrs. Welch had her money in there, and he should consider all the circumstances. Mrs. Welch was not active in the business. He said he would take up the matter and see what he could do. He later informed me that he had made arrangements for me to pay it in five monthly installments of two hundred dollars, which I paid as they were due. Q. This was in the year 1909? A. Yes, sir. Q. And your license was cancelled in September, 1910? A. I got notice of cancellation. I had prior to that sent them a telegram, in reference to discharging Mr. Thompson. I was ordered to discharge him and not employ him again. Later than that, I wrote either the Western Committee of the Motion Picture Patents Company or direct to New York, I don't recollect which, — the letters will show, — representing to them that Mr. Thompson was a married man, and so forth, and should have some work, and should not be denied employment, and that I would like to retain him at least for bookkeeping purposes. And afterwards I got a letter from them saying that I could continue Mr. Thompson as bookkeeper, but should not use him in any other capacity. Q. Mr. Hopp, you have produced quite a batch of letters in response to subpoena of the Government. I show you certain ones, and ask you to state whether or not these are typical of the course of business and the manner of doing business between you and the Motion Picture Patents Company during the period in which you conducted business under the license that you have referred to (handing papers to witness ) ? Mr. Kingsley: I object to that question as involving a conclusion of the witness and calling for a characterization, and on the ground that the letters themselves would be the best evidence. It is not within the province of this witness to characterize these letters for the purposes of this record. It is irrelevant and immaterial and incompetent.