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 #:
000464
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.

1082 Edgar Thorp, Direct Examination. member correctly, he was at St. Louis prior to that time. Prior to the announced existence of the Patents Company. Q. When did he go to Sioux Falls to take charge of the Standard Amusement Company or to work for the Standard Amusement Company? A. That also I think was in 1909. Q. After the formation of the Patents Company? A. No, prior to it. Q. 1909? A. Yes. He was out in that country. He was in St. Louis away prior to that. And also between the time of leaving St. Louis and the announced existence of the Patents Company, he went West. Q. When do you understand the Patents Company was formed? A. I never knew anything about the Patents Company prior to the Imperial Hotel meeting in 1909. Q. Was Mr. Thompson already in Sioux Falls? A. Yes. Q. And you are quite sure then the Standard Amusement Company was in existence at the time of this meeting? A. Yes, sir. Q. Was it Mr. Thompson who shipped the unlicensed films to the theatres in this South Dakota territory? A. They were sent out — he had knowledge of it. Q. And he is the one whom you held responsible for it? A. He is the one I held accountable, yes, sir. EDGAR THORP, a witness subpoenaed on behalf of the petitioner, being first duly sworn by the Examiner, testified as follows : Direct examination by Mr. Grosvenor : Q. Where do you live and what is your business? A. Franklin, Pennsylvania. I am in the lumber business, but I have the Orpheum Theatre, at Titusville, Pennsylvania. Q. Is that a theatre which displays moving pictures at Titusville? A. Yes, sir. Q. Was that theatre displaying films in August, 1911? A. Yes, sir. Q. You may state whether or not there was a demand at that time and is now for what are known as special features. A. There is. That is, when we cannot get them from the trust.