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 000373 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 #:
000373
Language:
English
Collection:
Government & Law and Early Cinema
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, Cross Examination. 222:s business for some time before you agreed to sell out in August, 1910? A. They had acquired some exchanges, yes, sir. Q. You knew at that time, that they were entering largely upon the rental exchange business? A. I heard that they were purchasing exchanges, and knew that they were purchasing exchanges. Q. Who devised the by-laws of the Film Service Association? A. Devised by the committee. Q. Who was the committee? A. James Clark, of the Pittsburgh Calcium, F. G. Aiken, Theatre Film Company of Chicago, William Swanson, Swanson Film Exchange of Chicago, Frank Howard, of the Howard Film Company of Boston, P. L. Waters, Waters Film Exchange, New York. A gentleman by the name of Peckham, who operated an exchange in Cleveland, Ohio. I think his initials were R. L. Pretty positive his initials were R. L. Let me see — Clark was President, Peckham was Vice-President, Waters was Treasurer — or Mr. Aitken was President, and there was another member on that committee. I cannot recall who the other member of the committee was at that time, sir. Q. Have you any interest in any theatres to-day? A. I am a stockholder in some. Q. In how many? A. Seven. I have been a stockholder in them for seven years or more. Q. Where are these seven theatres that you are a stockholder in? A. Six of them are located in Grand Rapids, and, I might explain, that one of them is a Keith vaudeville house. Q. And where is that located? A. Grand Rapids. Q. Are these seven theatres in which yon have a stock interest all located in the territory covered by your branch of the General Film Company of which you are the local manager? A. Yes, sir. Q. And are all of these seven theatres supplied with film by the General Film Company? A. No, sir. Q. How many of them are supplied by other sources? A. Three. Q. What are those theatres? A. The Orpheum. Q. That is a vaudeville theatre? A. No, I did not say that was a vaudeville theatre. The Columbia is the