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)

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 2
Leaf #:
000511
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.

J. M. Ensor, Direct Examination. 1129 ject? A. Then I asked Mr. Kennedy after we got out, or left that room, I told him I had about everything I had tied up in there, and some of the other people who had some stock were getting scared for fear they were going to cancel them, and would I be safe in buying some more stock or not, and asked for him to come clean with me and tell me the truth, so I would know how it was, and he said, "Go ahead, not any danger, as long as you do right we will not cancel you ;" and I went back and bought a lot more stock and then got thro wed in the neck. Q. Well, the Colorado Film Exchange did not sell out to the General Film Company? No, sir; they sold them out. Mr. Kingsley: Objected to as not responsive; I move to strike it out. By Mr Grosvenor : Q. Then thereafter, through the Summer of 1910, did you and the Colorado Film Exchange endeavor to live up to the terms and conditions of the license with the Patents Company? Mr. Kingsley : Question objected to as calling for the conclusion of the witness. The Witness : We regarded our contract like the pupil of my eye, because I knew if we gave them the least show in the world, that we would get the hooks throwed into us. That is the way I felt all the time, and I was as careful about everything as I could be. By Mr Grosvenor : Q. You may state whether or not your license was cancelled in September, 1910? A. Yes, sir; we got a wire. Q. I show you a telegram dated September 11, 1910, and ask you if that is a wire which you received notifying you of your cancellation? A. Yes, sir. Mr. Grosvenor: We offer this telegram in evidence. The telegram offered in evidence was marked by the Examiner "Petitioner's Exhibit No. 205," and is as follows: