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 #:
000463
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 Hopr, Cross Examination. 1081 Chicago? A. You mean that were going to those theatres? Q. Yes. A. Y^es, sir, that is true. Q. Where was Mr. Thompson employed at the time you discharged him? A. Where he was employed? Q. Where was he working at the time you discharged him? A. At Sioux Falls, South Dakota. Q. So he was your representative at Sioux Falls? A. Yes, sir. Q. And was he the manager of the Standard Amusement Company? A. No, sir, not at that time. Q. Had he been the manager of the Standard Amusement Company prior to that time? A. No, he had not. Q. What was he doing for the Standard Amusement Company at Sioux Falls? By that I mean, in what capacity was he employed? A. For the Standard Amusement Company? Q. Yes. A. If I remember rightly, Mr. Adams used him on the books there, bookkeeping. Mr. Adams was the gentleman in charge. Q. Did he go out on the road any? A. Mr. Adams? Q. Yes, Mr. Adams. A. Yes; I learned afterwards he did. Q. He had been out on the road, hadn't he? A. Yes, he had been out on the road. Q. Was Mr. Thompson a resident of Sioux Falls? A. No. He was at that time, yes. His family was living there then. Q. Did you send him there from your Chicago office? A. Originally, yes, sir. Q. He had been employed at the Chicago office, had he, before he went to Sioux Falls? A. No. Afterwards. Not before that. He had been connected with other exchanges prior to I being the means of engaging him and sending him to Sioux Falls. Q. Did you send him over from Chicago? A. Yes. Q. Now, with respect to the Standard Amusement Company located at Sioux Falls, did you look after the details of that business yourself, or did you leave it to a manager? A. I left it to a manager. Q. And who was the manager? A. Mr. C. D. Adams. Q. Now, Mr. Thompson had been working for licensed exchanges in Chicago, had he not, before he went out to Sioux Falls? A. No; no, I don't think he had. If I re