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 3
Leaf #:
000206
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:
September 21, 2023
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.

1432 H. N. Marvin, Direct Examination. quesne Amusement Supply Company, was that also a licensed rental exchange? A. It was. Q. Was there a rental exchange known as the Edison Display Company, having branches at Seattle, Wash., and Portland, Oregon? A. There was. Q. Did any changes take place in those exchanges? A. Well, in September, 1909, these two branch exchanges were consolidated with two branches of the Morton Film Exchange, located in the same cities, and the consolidated exchange was thereafter known as the Amalgamated Film Exchange, having branches in Portland and Seattle. Q. Did the Amalgamated Film Exchange take over the two exchanges owned by the Edison Display Company, and the two exchanges owned by the Morton Film Exchange? A. It did. Q. So that the Amalgamated Film Exchange was really the successor of four exchanges which had been operating prior to that time? A. Yes. Q. Did the C. J. Hite Company have a licensed rental exchange at Chicago, 111? A. It did. Q. What is the history of that exchange? A. Well, that exchange voluntarily surrendered its license on October 3rd, 1910. It announced the surrender of its license to the trade in a circular letter of that date in which it represented that it had surrendered its license because it alleged that it had obtained a better supply of motion pictures from unlicensed producers. Following this surrender of this license formal notice of the cancellation of the license was issued by the Patents Company in its bulletin of November 21, 1910. (>. In other words, C. J. Hite Company surrendered its license October, 3rd? A. Yes. Q. And sent out a circular letter to the trade to that effect? A. Yes. Q. Did the C. J. Hite Company or the owners of the C. J. Hite Company, continue in business under another name? A. They continued in business. They were known as the "H. & FT. Film Service Company." Q. Did the H. & H. Film Service Company own the C. J. Hite Company? A. Yes. Q. So that the circular letter of withdrawal, to which you referred as having been sent out October 3rd, 1910, was sent out by the H. & H. Film Service Company? A. Yes. Q. I show you copy of a letter on the letterhead of the