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 000409 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 #:
000409
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.

Alton Trbdick, Direct Examination. 2259 endeavor to ascertain as to what I could secure in the line of film service, I was hampered by the unreliability of the statements, which I received from the people who at that time were in control of the film situation in that territory. My continual answer to questions was to the effect that if they did give me service, they did not know how long I could keep it. They could give me no understanding in regard to how long I could use the service, and the result was, I just got out of the exhibiting business. I could not stand the uncertainty of any investment. Q. Did you try the licensed service? A. That was the service that I was trying to secure. Q. Who were the people that were in control of these exchanges, operating in your territory at that time? A. Mr. Frank Bailey was the manager at Butte, Montana, and Mr. George Grombacher was the manager at Spokane. Q. Will you name the exchanges at Butte, Montana? A. The Montana Film Exchange at Butte, and the Spokane Film Exchange, at Spokane, were what was known as the Bailey interests. Q. Were they licensed? A. Yes, sir, they were licensed. Q. And what was the name of the independent exchange? A. The independent exchange in that territory, was the Pacific Film Exchange, which was operating in Butte and Seattle, and shipping into the Spokane territory. Q. And who was the controller of that exchange — who controlled it? A. Ray Grombacher, a brother of George Grombacher, was the Seattle manager, and I cannot think of the Butte manager, but it was very common information and experience, that this was controlled by the Bailey interests. Q. In other words, the Bailey interests, then, controlled both the licensed and the unlicensed exchanges in that territory, at that time? A. Yes, sir. Q. What about the Amalgamated Exchange? Where did that operate? A. That operated in Portland and Seattle. Q. That did not serve in Spokane, then, at all? A. No. At the early part of their amalgamation, they served a few customers, but withdrew. Q. Do you know the reason why they withdrew? A. The reason why they withdrew, was in order to protect their territory from any inroads of Bailey. They had a num