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 #:
000223
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.

Frank M. Kbnney, Cross Examination. 2673 Q. Had there been any dispute, or discussion, between you respecting whether you should transfer your business to that exchange? A. Yes, sir, there had. For instance, he solicited me, or solicited my business once, and I said that "I am pretty well satisfied where I am," and he just said. "You had better come along Ken," and I said, "I am pretty well satisfied — " Mr. GboSVBNOB: I object to the statement of the conversation, because it has no bearing on any of the issues in this case, and it is incompetent. By Mr. Kixgsley : Q. Proceed. A. He simply stated then, "One of these days you will wake up probably, and find another house going up in your neighborhood." Q. And "find another house going up in your neighborhood?" A. Yes, sir. Q. This was the man who was the owner of that exchange, or the part owner? A. Yes, sir. Mr. Kohl and Mr. Heintz. Q. What exchange was Mr. Kohl interested in? A. The United Film Exchange. Q. You say lie was a half owner? A. Yes, sir. Cross examination by Mr. Grosvenor: Q. You took your service from the Lake Shore Film Company for a considerable period? A. Yes, sir. Q. And you continued with them after their license had been cancelled by the Patents Company? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you recall that at about that time the General Film Company, that is in 1910, had acquired a large number of the rental exchanges throughout the country? A. Yes, sir. Q. The Lake Shore Film Company was one of the last of the so-called licensed exchanges to remain in business? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, as I understand you, after their license was cancelled, and they took on the independent films, you endeavored to stay with them, and did stay with them for a few months? A. I staved with them longer than a few