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 #:
000210
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.

1436 H. N. Marvin, Direct Examination. was the man with whom you communicated, usually? A. William Steiner. Q. Was he known as the principal owner of the exchange? A. He was. Q. Was it known to you or to the Patents Company, that there was any other considerable owner at that time? A. It was not. Q. How was the Imperial Film Exchange usually spoken of? A. It was spoken of as "Steiner's Exchange." Q. Did the Kleine Optical Company have licensed rental exchanges in Birmingham, Ala.; Des Moines, Iowa; Indianapolis, Ind.; Los Angeles, Cal.; Seattle, Wash., and St. Louis, Mo.? A. It did. Q. Will you tell us briefly what changes, if any, took place in the branch at Birmingham, Ala.? A. The name of this branch was changed to the Birmingham Film and Supply Company early in 1909, and the supply of motion pictures of this exchange was purchased by the General Film Company in September, 1910. Q. What change took place in the branch at Des Moines, Iowa? A. This exchange was sold, and its name changed to the Iowa Film Service, early in 1909, and the exchange was subsequently consolidated with the Pittsburgh Calcium Light Company, of Omaha. Q. What change took place in the branch of the Kleine Optical Company, located at Indianapolis? A. That exchange was consolidated with the exchange of the H. Lieber Company, of Indianapolis, early in 1909. Q. Was the H. Lieber Company operating a licensed exchange at that time in Indianapolis? A. It was. Q. So that the branch of the Kleine Optical Company, at Indianapolis, was merged with the licensed rental exchange operated by H. Lieber Company, of the same City? A. It was. Q. Did any change take place in the branch of the Kleine Optical Company located at Los Angeles, Cal.? A. This branch became known as the "K. T. Film Exchange.'' It got into financial difficulties, and in May, 1910, a Receiver was appointed on the petition of the creditors of the exchange located in Los Angeles. The Receiver was appointed, I believe, the 6th day of June, 1910, and on July 19th, 1910, the license of this exchange was cancelled while it was in the hands of the Receiver.