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 #:
000354
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.

332 William Pelzer, Direct Examination. Q. Then to that figure, $1,118,226.42, there should be added, in order to arrive at the true net profits, the amounts expended in the year 1911 by the General Film Company in making these different payments? A. Well — Q. Now, I asked you, Mr. Pelzer, to produce a statement of the net profits of the General Film Company and this paper which I hold purports to be that statement — do you think that a statement of net profits of a company is fairly made when that statement omits sums paid out from earnings for properties acquired? A. I do not get what you are driving at, Mr. Grosvenor. Q. You have stated this figure $1,118,226.00 is a statement which does not include payments of cash made by the General Film Company in the year 1911, on deferred payments. A. Yes, I believe that is so; I can't be positive. I don't look after that particular part of the business, but I believe it does not. Q. Were these deferred payments paid from, or paid out of the net profits for the year 1911? A. They were paid out of the earnings. Q. Well, should not a statement of net profits for that year, in order to be accurate and properly made, should it not include what you have paid out of earnings in order to acquire other properties? Mr. Caldwell: Objected to as calling for the opinion of the witness. A. I think that is largely a question of bookkeeping and the question of the sort of a statement you want; if you want that figure I can furnish it. Q. How much was paid out of the earnings of the General Film Company in the year 1911, on these deferred payments? A. I could not say offhand, but I could get the information. Q. It amounts to several hundreds of thousands of dollars? A. I would not undertake to say; it might be more, and it might not be that much. Q. Mr. Felzer, I will ask you to supplement that statement, the statement which purports to be a statement of net profits, and bring in a statement showing the net profits accumulated by adding to it what you have paid out of