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 #:
000233
Language:
English
Collection:
Government & Law and Early Cinema
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:
May 23, 2024
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.

Hakky N. Marvin, Direct Examination. 211 Q. Gaston Melies? A. Gaston Melies had a license from the Motion Picture Patents Company for himself, and as attorney for George Melies of Paris to manufacture and import motion picture films. Q. Alfred E. Smith? A. Alfred E. Smith was an officer of the Vitagraph Company, a licensee of the Motion Picture Patents Company. Q. George K. Spoor? A. George K. Spoor was an officer of the Essanay Company, licensee of the Motion Picture Patents Company. Q. William N. Selig? A. William N. Selig was an officer of the Selig Polyscope Company, a licensee of the Motion Picture Patents Company, Q. Each of these ten Directors also became a holder of common stock in the new company, that is to say, in the General Film Company? A. I don't know. Q. Was the common stock of the General Film Company, distributed to any other persons than the owners of, or officers of, the Patents Company licensees? A. I am not sure, but I do not think it was. Q. You do not think it was distributed to any other than the Patents Company licensees? A. No. Q. Now, are these men who were elected Directors in 1910, now Directors of the General Film Company? A. Not all of them. Q. Take Jeremiah J. Kennedy. Is he a Director to-day? A. He is not. Q. Who has succeeded him? Who represents the Biograph Company? A. It has no representative. Q. How long ago did it cease having a representative? A. I think it was in May, 1912. Q. Do you know who succeeded Mr. Kennedy? A. I think Mr. Percy L. Waters was elected a Director. Q. What is his business? A. He was at that time the General Manager of the General Film Company. Q. Is George Kleine a Director still? A. I believe he is Q. Seigmund Lubin? A. I think he is. I have no direct knowledge of the affairs of that company, and I have to speak from hearsay. Q. That is, as to who is now Directors? A. Yes, sir. Mr. Grosvenor: Well, I won't pursue that as to the other names, and I will have the list presented.