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 #:
000298
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.

276 William Pelzer, Direct Examination. vant, incompetent, and immaterial, and because the witness lias already stated that he is merely the Secretary of this company and not a Director. By Mr. Grosvenor: Q. Please read the question again. The question was read 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?" A. It was not my business, I was not interested, and I was not a stockholder, and I considered my position as purely clerical and wrote out the minutes as directed. Q. Were you present at the meetings? A. Yes, sir. Q. You heard the discussions? A. Yes. Q. Now, please read the question again, and Mr. Pelzer, see if you can give a more definite answer. The question was again read 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?" -» I will change that question. Do you mean to say that you attended these meetings of the Directors and were present at the discussions, and did not get any idea of what it was intending to do? A. I knew that the company was planning to go into the exchange business. Q. And to do so very rapidly? A. And to do so extensively, I should say. Q. And that was the intention of the company from the start? Mr. Caldwell: Objected to as irrelevant, immaterial and incompetent. A. Naturally from Hie idea I had of the business, but what the intentions of Hie interested parties were I don't know. Q. You did gather that the plan was from the beginning