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)

Page scan 000228 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:
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 6
Leaf #:
000228
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 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.

3256 Harry N. Marvin, Direct Examination. 1 The Witness : The Amalgamated Exchange, having an office at Portland, Oregon. By Mr. Kingsley: Q. In Defendants' Exhibit 60, page 1370, Vol. Ill, which is a letter written by A. J. Cavanangh of Minneapolis, Minnesota, to the Motion Picture Patents Company, he refers to Mr. Van Duzee owning most of the motion picture houses in that city, and as favoring them in service. Do you know what exchange Van Duzee owned or managed? A. The 2 Twin City Calcium Company. Q. Located where? A. At Minneapolis. Q. Defendants1 Exhibit 61, page 1371, Vol. Ill, which is a letter written by Otto N. Raths, of St. Paul, to the Motion Picture Patents Company, he alleges that "the agent of your exchange in Minneapolis has a personal interest in various theatres in this city." Do you know to whom he referred? A. He referred to Van Duzee, manager of that exchange, and owner of it. Q. Will you name the exchange of which he was manager? A. Of the Twin City Calcium Company, that I men 3 tioned in the previous answer. Q. In Defendants' Exhibit 64, page 1376, Vol. Ill, which is a letter from Harry R. Rand to the Motion Picture Patents Company, he refers to one Florence, who had threatened to put him out of business. Do you know what exchange Florence owned or managed? A. Florence originally managed the Trent-Wilson Exchange in Salt Lake City, which exchange subsequently was known as the Florence Film Exchange, or Florence Exchange, largely owned and managed by Florence. Q. Will you tell us where it was located? A. It was located in Salt Lake City. Q. And where was Harry R. Rand located? A. His principal location was Salt Lake City. Q. Did the Motion Picture Patents Company at the time of the surrender of the license of the Imperial Film Exchange, receive any advice from D wight Macdonald, relative to the matter? A. None whatever. Q. At the time of the surrender of the license of the Imperial Film Exchange, did the Motion Picture Patents Company give Dwight Macdonald any instructions relative to