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 #:
000297
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.

William Pelzer, Direct Examination. 275 By Mr. Grosvenor: Q. Tlie minutes of this date show that the meeting was held at 80 Fifth Avenue, New York City. Those were the offices of the Motion Picture Patents Company? A. Yes. sir. Q. And the meeting was held in the offices of that company in that building? A. Yes, sir, in one of the rooms of the company. Q. That is of the Patents Company? A. Yes, sir. Q. Mr. Kennedy reported the purchase of five or six exchanges and then made the following report : "Percentage of business of the country based on reels released during the week ending September 17, 1910, assuming that none of the business of exchanges which discontinued as licensed exchanges was obtained by General Film Company 78.3 Total number of licensed exchanges when General Film Company commenced business . . 69 New exchange at St. Louis 1 70 Exchanges operated by General Film Company i(> Exchanges licensed cancelled 9 Not operated by General Film Company 15 70 The General Film Company was extended very rapidly in the year 1910? A. Apparently. Q. That was in accordance with the plan, as you understood it, adopted in the beginning, that is, when it first commenced operations? A. I don't know anything of the plan. Q. Do you mean to say that you were Secretary of the company and didn't have any idea of what it was intending to do? A. My position as Secretary is purely clerical. Q. I will ask the Examiner to read you the question. The question was read to the witness as follows : "Q. Do you mean to say that you were Secretary of the company and didn't have any idea of what it was intending to do?" Now, can you give a definite answer to that question? Mr. Caldwell: I object to the question as irrele