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 6
Leaf #:
000535
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 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.

AijFRM) Weiss, Bbckoss Examination. 3387 stated that I had uo solicitors, I state that over again, that I never had any solicitors, but this particular man, Mr. Harstn, was engaged by Mr. Waters to solicit for the five branches, and as I stated before, once in a while Mr. Harstn came in and gave me the customer to supply. I just state the fact that I was correct in my statement when I stated that I had no solicitors. Q. While you were with the branch of the General Film Company, was some of the business with the new customers done as a result of those customers coming to your offices, or the proposed customers coming to your offices and talking over prices and programs with you there? A. Yes, sir. Q. That is the common method of doing business in the rental exe^mge busines? A. The exhibitor comes first in and gets a quotation on different grades of service, and then he generally cancels the order with his present branch or present office, and makes the change beginning next week or next Monday. Allow me to state one more thing. When those statements were submitted to me before — Q. Which statements do you have reference to? A. Those statements are sent to the home office. Q. The statements that were marked Defendants1 Exhibits for identification numbers 203, 201, 205 and 206? A. Those statements were shown to me before, and you will find that in July, 1910, the time I sold my office to the General Film Company, you will find the business there from two thousand to twenty-one hundred dollars. Coming back to the cross examination Mr. Kingsley gave me before, you compare those statements to the year after, and you will find $1,000 business there, with ail that, that Mr. Waters kept me down with the buying of additional films. That is all I have to say. Q. How much were you making individually a year out of your rental exchange business before you sold it to the General Film Company in June or July, 1010? A. The way I conducted my business, I made from fifteen to twenty thousand dollars, net profits. Recross examination by Mr. Kingsley : Q. Had you been making it at the rati1 of fifteen or twenty thousand dollars a year up to the time thai you sold to the General Film Company? A. Before I sold —