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 000410 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 #:
000410
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.

2260 Alton Tredick, Direct Examination. ber of inquiries from the Coast territory, and they finally agreed to cut out any theatres that they had in Bailey's territory, which they divided, in the State of Washington, and eliminate all competition by Bailey, agreeing to withdraw from the Coast territory, and they would withdraw from Bailey's territory. Q. Do you know whether either of these exchanges were interested in theatres at that time? A. Very shortly after the Amalgamated Film Exchange went into effect, the People's Amusement Company was formed, and they had almost identically the same officials as the Amalgamated Film Exchange, and Bailey, shortly after that, formed the Montana Amusement Company. They proceeded to do everything possible to secure all the theatres in the territory. Q. Do you know how many they secured? A. Mr. Winstock, at one time, was the General Manager of the company, and he informed me that they had 30, and Bailey, of the Montana Amusement Company, also told me at one time, that he had 17. Q. Were any of those theatres located in Spokane? A. No, sir; none of those. Pardon me, there was one theatre in the back of a penny parlor that Bailey had. Bailey bought a penny parlor in Spokane, and in the back of that, he had a theatre. It did not amount to anything, however. Q. Do you know how it happened that they got so many theatres in that territory? A. As to the actual details of each transaction, I am unable to state, because I was not officially connected with them. However, they were in a position where they directly or indirectly let out word to theatre men to the effect — Mr. Grosvenor : I object to this statement of the witness, he already having testified that he did not know of these various matters, and now he is just giving hearsay and his opinion of what may have transpired. By Mr. Caldwell : Q. Was it a matter of common knowledge1 in the business there? A. It was a matter of common knowledge. Q. You may go ahead and state —