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)

Page scan 000349 from 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 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 4
Leaf #:
000349
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 12, 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.

Albert J. Gilligham, Direct Examination. 2199 Thereupon ALBERT J. GILLIGHAM, the next witness produced by defendants, of lawful age, being first duly sworn by the Examiner, deposed as follows: Direct examination by Mr. Caldwell: Q. Where do you live, Mr. Gilligham, and in what business are you engaged? A. I live at No. GO Virginia Avenue, Detroit. I am in the motion picture business. Q. What branch of the motion picture business? A. I am manager of the Detroit branch of the General Film Company. Q. How long have you been the manager of that branch? A. Three years the 21st of last month. Q. That is to say, since the 21st day of November, 1910? A. Yes, sir. Q. And prior to that time, in what business were you engaged? A. I was in the motion picture business as an exchange man. Q. What was the name of your exchange? A. National Vaudette Film Company. Q. And what was your connection wTith the National Vaudette Film Company? A. My connection with the National Vaudette Film Company was treasurer and manager of said company. Q. You were interested as a stockholder? A. I owned fifty per cent, of the stock. Q. W7ho were the other principal owners? A. Emanuel Mandelbaum. Q. Yes. A. Jacob Diener and Philip Gleichman. Q. How long were you connected with the National Vaudette Film Company? A. I was connected with the National Vaudette Film Company for about a year and a half previous to the sale to the General Film Company, but I was connected with the Vaudette Film Company, of Grand Rapids, which combined with the National, under the title of the "National Vaudette Film Company," for about a year and a half previous to the sale to the General Film Company. Q. And the Grand Rapids Film Company, with which you were connected; what was your connection with that? A. President and manager of that company, sir. Q. Now, was that consolidation prior or subsequent to