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 000466 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 #:
000466
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.

2316 W. F. Kinson, Direct Examination. the General Film Company? A. The Calcium branch and the Columbia branch. Q. Which is your branch? A. The Calcium branch. Q. Now, prior to January 15th, in what business were you engaged? A. The film rental business. Q. And where? A. In Pittsburgh. Q. With what company were you connected? A. The Pittsburgh Calcium Light & Film Company. Q. Did you remain with that company after it sold out to the General Film Company? A. I did. Q. Who were the principal owners of that exchange? A. Richard A. Rowland and James B. Clark. Q. In what class of pictures did they deal after they sold out to the General Film Company, the licensed or unlicensed? A. Unlicensed. Q. Then do you know about what time they sold to the General Film Company? A. I couldn't say positively. I think, in October of 1910. Q. Did they continue their operations as a film exchange immediately after selling to the General Film Company? A. No. Mr. Clark was connected with the General Film Company for several months as the branch manager. Q. What business was the Pittsburgh Calcium Light Company continuing to transact, if any, immediately following the sale to the General Film Company? A. They were in the film rental business, representing the unlicensed service. Q. Then there was no interruption in its business? A. No, sir. Q. What was the character of the business that they did, in point of extent and volume? Did they conduct a profitable business? A. I never saw the books, and I couldn't say positively, but they must have, or they would not have continued in it until the present date. Q. How many customers did they continue with, or how many customers did they have in the interval between the sale to the General Film Company, which you stated was in October, 1910, and the following January, when you left them? A. I could not say. Q. Did they have a good many customers? A. I should say they did, yes, sir.