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 #:
000307
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 Pelzek, Direct Examination. 285 Q. Dated March 13, 1911. You had bettor read over your testimony when the examiner has written it out, Mr. Pelzer? A. Yes. Q. The minutes for this date, March 13, 1911, authorize the payment of dividends. J low long had this company been doing business on March 15, 1911? A. March 15, 1911? Q. Yes. A. Do you mean actual commercial work or since the date of its organization? Q. Well, in actual commercial work, how long had the company been engaged in business? A. I should say about 10 months, as near as I can remember. Q. And these dividends are, a dividend of 7 per cent, for the calendar year, 1910, on the preferred stock issued for cash and on authorized issues for payments on account of property purchased. Second, a dividend of 12 per cent., for the calendar year, 1910, on the common stock issued. You have testified that all the common stock was owned by the Patents Company's licensees, the manufacturers? A. I said — 1 would not call them all Patent Company's licensees, strictly in that sense, some of them were individuals and the individuals are not licensees. Q. But they are officers of the Patents Company's licensees? A. Yes. Q. And third, dividend notes to manufacturers for the remaining undivided profits. The manufacturers referred to are the Patents Company's licensees? A. Yes, sir. Q. I wish you would on Tuesday produce a statement of the dividends that have been paid by the General Film Company since it began doing business and show separately the dividends on the preferred stock, on the common stock, and such dividends as were given in the way of dividend notes to manufacturers, showing total amounts paid as well as the rate? A. Yes. Mr. Grosvenor: I offer the minutes of the meeting of March the 15th, 1911, of the P>oard of Directors of the General Film Company, held at the office of the Patents Company, and which are at pages 39, 10 and 41 of the minute book. (The minutes referred to were marked Petitioner's Exhibit No. 85, and are as follows:)