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 #:
000462
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.

1080 Joseph Hopp, Cross Examination. Q. Yes. A. No, sir. Positively no. Not to my knowledge. Q. Didn't you have a solicitor out? A. No, sir. Q. Seeking business in that territory? A. No, sir. Q. And was not the stock of films kept on hand by the Standard Amusement Company to supply new exhibitors, whether licensed or unlicensed, who might apply to it? A. No. Not for that purpose. There was an accumulation of films at Sioux Falls. A small amount. Q. Money for the use of these films was paid to the Standard Amusement Company at Sioux Falls, was it not? A. Yes. Q. That was the collection office for the use of a large portion of these films which you say were accumulated by the Standard Amusement Company at Sioux Falls? A. Well, it was not exactly in that form. The gentleman who was handling the Standard Amusement Company and conducting its business was collecting this money and sending it to the Standard Film Exchange. Supposed to, at least. That was the intention. Q. At any rate, the customers paid at the Standard Amusement Company's office or remitted to it primarily? A. The payments that were made were made by them at that office, yes, sir. Q. Now, at the time that you were asked to come to the office of the Western Committee, something was said to you about three unlicensed theatres in South Dakota which had been using licensed films which had come from the Standard Films Exchange originally? A. Yes, there was conversation on that line. Q. And I think you told them there was one theatre that you knew about that was using it? A. Yes. Q. Was that a licensed theatre? A. That I cannot say at this time. Q. As a matter of fact, you told them you knew it was an unlicensed theatre, didn't you? A. That is possible. Q. The other two you learned about later? A. As a result of that investigation at that time, yes, sir. Q. And those two were unlicensed theatres, were they not? A. Yes, sir. Q. And they had been using and were using when you investigated the complaint, licensed film which had originally been shipped from the Standard Film Exchange in