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 1
Leaf #:
00043
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.

Harry N. Marvin, Direct Examination. 21 Q. Was it read paragraph by paragraph? A. Yes. Q. And there had been previous meetings at which the terms of these agreements had been agreed upon so that at the meeting of December 18, nothing remained except to execute the agreements, is that not correct? A. I don't know anything about such meetings — some of the Edison people ma}r have discussed matters with other licensees, and we discussed matters some with George Kleine, but I have no knowledge of former meetings. Q. Had you not had a conference with Mr. Dyer preceding the meeting of December 18th, as to what should be the terms of these license agreements? A. Yes, wre have had conferences with Mr. Dyer, but not with the other licensees. Q. And who had been present at those conferences with Mr. Dyer — Mr. Dyer and yourself, and Mr. Kennedy, had he been with you? A. Yes, I think Mr. Kennedy was sometimes present and sometimes Mr. Scull, and some of these meetings took place in the office of Mr. Phillip, counsel for the Pathe Freres. Mr. Berst may have been present at some meetings when the terms of the agreements were being settled. Q. What is the capital stock of the Patents Company? A. $100,000. Q. And one-half of it was taken by the Biograph Company and one-half by the Edison Company? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, what was the purpose of this provision in the preliminary agreement relating to the transfer of the patents: "The Edison Company further covenants and agrees not to pledge, sell, or otherwise dispose of its capital stock in the Patents Company, except a minimum number of shares sufficient to qualiy one-half of the total number of Directors which the Patents Company may have, with out the consent of the Biograph Company and the Armar Company, and the Edison Company further agrees to deposit its certificates of stock in the Patents Company, except such as represents the said qualifying shares for Directors with a responsible trust company named by the Patents Company as trustee, and to instruct the said trustee not to release, transfer or return the said certificates so deposited without the consent of the Biograph