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 000473 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 #:
000473
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.

Harry E. Nichols, Direct Examination. 2323 Q. Did they sell out to the General Film Company? A. Yes, sir. Q. At about the same time? A. Yes, sir. Q. And were you connected with the Pennsylvania-Co lumbia Exchange at the time they sold to the General Film Company? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, did you remain with the Pennsylvania-Columbia Exchange after the sale? A. I went with the General Film Company. Q. Immediately after the sale? A. Yes, sir. Q. Well, did the Pennsylvania-Columbia Exchange continue in business as an unlicensed exchange after the sale to the General Film Company? A. Oh, no, sir; the Pennsylvania-Columbia went out of business then and consolidated with the Duquesne Amusement Company. Q. Under what name? A. Under the General Film Company — Columbia branch. Q. By saying "consolidated' ? do you mean to say that the stock of the Pennsylvania-Columbia Film Exchange was consolidated with the stock of the Duquesne Amusement Company? A. I don't know about the stock, but I know they moved together. Q. Isn't the fact this, that the Duquesne Company, or the Duquesne branch, and the Columbia-Pennsylvania branch were consolidated as one branch of the General Film Company? A. That is right. Q. And you do not mean to say that there was a stock consolidation? A. No, sir. Q. Or a merger of the two companies? A. No, sir, not that. Q. Do you know whether Messrs. Rowland and Clark continued in the film exchange business after the sale to the General Film Company? A. They did, yes, sir. Q. And what was the name of the company under which they continued in business? A. Mr. Clark continued with the General Film Company for a few months, but at the same time he had the Independent Film Exchange of Pennsylvania. Q. And do you know whether the Independent Film Exchange, which had been, as I understand, giving unlicensed service, prior to the time of the sale to the General Film Company, afterwards consolidated with the Pittsburgh Cal