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 #:
000211
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.

H. N. Marvin, Direct Examination. 1437 At that time it owed the licensed producers of motion pictures between five and six thousand dollars. The exchange for some time had been leasing less than the required quantity of film. Many complaints had been made by exhibitors that the exchange did not fulfill its contracts with exhibitors for service. Q. You say that the petition for the receivership of the K. T. Film Exchange was made by creditors. Were any of those creditors licensed manufacturers who joined in the petition? A. No. Q. As far as you know? A. No. Q. What is the history of the Seattle branch of the Kleine Optical Company? A. This branch was sold to a licensed exchange, known as the Morton Film Exchange, of Portland, Oregon, and in April, 1909, this exchange subsequently consolidated with the Edison Display Company, of Portland, and Seattle, and the combined exchanges operated thereafter under the name of the Amalgamated Film Exchange. Q. So that the Seattle branch disappeared because of the consolidation with the Edison Display Company, which subsequently was absorbed by the Amalgamated Film Exchange? A. Well, it was consolidated originally with the Morton Film Exchange of Portland, and that exchange consolidated with the Edison Display Company of Portland. Q. Was that office ever closed? A. No. Q. With respect to the St. Louis branch of the Kleine Optical Company, what changes occurred there? A. That was sold to the Western Film Exchange, a licensed exchange of St. Louis, in April, 1909. Q. Were there licensed rental exchanges known as Laemmle Film Service, located at Chicago, Illinois; Evansville, Indiana; Minneapolis, Minnesota; Omaha, Nebraska; Portland, Oregon; Salt Lake City, Utah, and Memphis, Tennessee? A. There were. Q. Were these various exchanges licensed early in 1909? A. They were. Q. What change occurred, if any, in regard to the Laemmle Film Service Exchange at Memphis, Tennessee? A. This office was voluntarily closed on the 6th of March, 1909, as we understand, because it was unprofitable. Q. What changes, if any, took place in the Laemmle