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 (1914)

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:
1914
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 5
Leaf #:
000439
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 21, 2023
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.

Charles o. Baumann, Cross Examination. 2889 By Mr. Grosvenor: Q. Let us examine some of these. William Steiner was identified with what exchanges before July, L910? A. William Steiner Film Exchange, Fourth Avenue; The Albany Film Exchange, or an exchange in Albany. Q. What was the name of the exchange in Albany? A. I believe it is the Albany. Q. Are you sure it was not in Troy? A. I am sure it was not Troy. Q. What other exchanges had he been identified with? A. Prior to the William Steiner Film Exchange, the Imperial Film Exchange, at the same address. Q. Which address? A. The Fourth Avenue address. Q. Was not the license of the Imperial Film Exchange at the same address, that is, Fourth Avenue, cancelled in April, 1910? A. Yes. Q. At the time the Imperial Film Exchange was doing business it was doing business as a licensed exchange, was it not? A. Yes. Q. After its license wTas cancelled it began to do business with independent products? A. Yes. Q. And its name was changed? A. Yes, sir. Q. So that that necessitated the changing of its customers? A. No. Q. Why not? A. Because it got an adequate supply of film, and was able to continue from that time on. Q. Did it retain the same customers? A. I don't know. Q. Then, taking that exchange from that list, it appears that it had only been in business about three months at the time of this advertisement? A. Yes. Q. And it had succeeded another exchange, whose license had been cancelled? A. Yes, sir. Q. Herbert Miles, his license had been cancelled, had it not? A. Yes. Q. And that was cancelled in April, 1910? A. T believe that is the date. Q. So that the several exchanges named on this list as being connected with Miles were all organized in the three months between April and July, 1910? Mr. Kixosley: Objected to as calling for the conclusion of the witness.