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 000357 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 #:
000357
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.

William Pelzer, Direct Examination. 335 "As distributed: net profits 1911, $1,055,579." How were these profits that you show by this figure "$1,055,000" distributed as net profits? Were those the cash payments? A. No, that is the total amount that the manufacturers were entitled to under the contract that was distributed to their credit on the books under the payments $979,327.06, and was made on account of that item, or on account of that distribution. Q. Then the amount that the manufacturers received in the year 1911, was $979,000, in cash payments? A. Yes. Q. Now, you understand that I want these figures given in detail? A. You want them separately. Q. And the dates of the payments? A. Yes, I understand exactly what you want. Q. Received by each manufacturer? A. Yes; T didn't put it in that form, because you simply asked for what I understood was the totals. Q. Now, if you will look at my request, on page 285 of the record, and then take it with those statements, I think it will be clear. A. All right. Q. Does the General Film Company own stock in any other companies? A. No, sir. Q. Does it have a Canadian branch? A. It has several Canadian branches. Q. Are they owned by the same General Film Company? A. Yes, sir. Q. Of Maine? A. Yes, sir. Q. I wish, Mr. Pelzer, you wrould also produce a copy of the General Film Company's contract with exhibitors, the general form of contract. A. I do not believe that there is such a form of contract. Q. The General Film Company limits or restricts its customers to the exhibitors licensed by the Patents Company; is not that correct? A. Well, we have no agreement that I know of. Q. I didn't ask you about any agreement, I said the General Film Company limits its customers to the exhibitors licensed by the Patents Company? A. Oh, I misunderstood your question; yes, sir. Q. Then the General Film Company declines to distribute films to any exhibitor after the General Film Company has received notice from the Patents Company that the license of the exhibitor has been cancelled? A. They are not per