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)

Page scan 000306 from 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 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 #:
000306
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:
September 12, 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.

284 William Pelzer, Direct Examination. of Mr. Kennedy were of great value to the Company, it was moved by Dr. Dyer, and duly seconded, that action on the resignation be suspended and that the chair appoint a committee to wait on Mr. Kennedy. The Chairman appointed Messrs. Dyer, Lubin and Long as the committee to wait on Mr. Kennedy, but upon the suggestion of Mr. Long, and with the approval of the Board, Mr. Kleine took the place of Mr. Long. It was moved by Mr. Dyer, seconded by Mr. Spoor, that (lie Company pay Mr. Kennedy as salary for his services during the period ending December 31, 1910, the sum of $25,000, to be paid out of the receipts for the year 1911. Carried unanimously. The Committee reported that they had been unable to communicate with Mr. Kennedy, and it was moved and duly seconded, that the Committee wait on Mr. Kennedy at his office, and that the meeting therefore adjourn until 10 A. M., March 11, 1911, at 80 Fifth Avenue. Carried. Attest : Wm. Pelzer, Secretary. President. By Mr. Grosvenor: Q. These minutes contain a summary of the licensed exchanges submitted for the information of the Board and then enumerates 10 exchanges not yet acquired. Did the Film Company subsequently acquire all of those ten enumerated there, except the one first named, the Greater New York Film Rental Company? A. I think they did, as near as I can remember the names. Q. Then that summary printed on that page is a complete record of all the licensed exchanges and what was done with them? A. I could not say that. Q. Now, on the same page there is this statement: "The Treasurer submitted the following report which on motion duly seconded was accepted." That report does not appear in the minutes. Will you please produce that report? A. What date is that?