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 #:
000564
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.

3006 George K. Spook, Direct Examination. membership in the new proposition were to be considered, if he didn't drop that prosecution? A. I don't remember that any new proposition was at hand at that time. I remember calling on him in regard to that only, that is, in regard to having his brother arrested and locked up in the jail there. I did that at the solicitation of the Chicago Film exchange men, and in fact, I think Mr. Kleine and Mr. Selig were influenced by some exchange men in Chicago, who asked us to go there and see him. They stated it looked very bad. Q. Was this Hopp that the witness Swanson refers to there, Joseph Hopp, who conducted a rental exchange in Chicago? A. Yes, sir, that was the man. Q. Did you know of an exchange in Chicago called the "Globe Film Exchange?" A. Yes, sir, there was such an exchange. Q. Who owned or operated that exchange? A. Why, either Miller or Baker. There were two exchanges, one called the "Globe" and one the "Royal." They were run by two men who were brothers but who had different names. You never could tell which was which, either, by looking at them. One of them called himself "Baker'' and the other called himself "Miller," but they were brothers nevertheless. I could not say which one of them owned that Globe exchange, whether it was Baker or Miller, but it was one of them. Q. What was the character of those two exchanges? A. Not of the best, not considered of the best. Mr. Grosvenor: I object to that testimony, and move to strike it out as improper, this witness not being qualified to express an opinion. By Mr. Caldwell: Q. You were in business in Chicago, and have been for many years? A. Yes, sir. Q. Both as an exchange man and as a producer? A. Yes, sir. Q. And did you know what the reputation of those two exchanges was in that community? A. Yes, sir, I did. Q. Do you know whether they were guilty of what is known as "duping?" A. They were. They had a place