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 #:
000619
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. C. Graham, Direct Examination. 1237 and discussed the situation regarding the recent cancel * lations. It was my effort to show Mr. Kennedy that the two corporations were companies legally organized under the State laws of Missouri, and contained stockholders, the personnel of which was apparently not familiar to Mr. Kennedy, or his associates. He admitted that, after I gave him an outline of the business of the two companies. Q. Was anything said about whether the cancellation had been rightful or wrongful? Mr. Kingsley: Objected to as leading. The Witness : In our conversation I called Mr. Kennedy's attention to the fact that the two companies had been operated, as far as we knew, strictly in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Patents Company. He asked me questions as to whether certain films had been transferred from one office to the other, and I stated that it had not, it absolutely had not. He stated that in his opinion it was a grievious mistake that these exchanges had been cancelled, and he admitted that innocent people had been affected through the lack of their knowledge of the conditions. He g told me that two individuals of our respective companies had been in the mind of the Patents Company, and that they proposed to teach those two individuals a lesson, claiming that there had been too much talk, and various carrying of rumors, and individual actions, which I showed Mr. Kennedy had no effect whatever on the Missouri companies as corporations, and which he admitted. He stated to me that it was too bad that they could not undo things that had been done. Q. Had you had, or either of these companies had, any hearings on this question of whether you had violated the 4 terms of the license? A. Absolutely none. Q. After this conversation with Mr. Kennedy which you have testified to, in which he said the cancellation had been wrongfully made? A. Absolutely none. No effort was made to listen to our case in any other way than I have stated. Q. After this conversation which you had with Mr. Kennedy was the cancellation revoked and were these two companies allowed to obtain films from the various manufacturers? A. The cancellations were not revoked, but the