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 000411 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 #:
000411
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. 389 Thereupon, WILLIAM PELZER, resumed the stand. 1 Direct examination (continued) by Mr. Orosvenor: Q. Mr. Pelzer, have you brought all the things which you were requested to produce? A. I have brought, first, the papers that I understand Mr. Marvin was to produce; I brought them. Q. Just let me see what you have and I will put it on the record. A. All right, sir. Mr. Orosvenor: The witness has produced a state 2 ment purporting to show the royalty receipts, legal disbursements and number of licensed exhibitors of the Motion Picture Patents Company; also, a list of the replevin suits instituted by the manufacturers licensed by the Motion Picture Patents Company. Before putting them in evidence I will examine same. Mr. Willis : Will you permit me to make an explanation, as to the paper handed you, as to the replevin suits instituted by the manufacturers licensed by the Motion Picture Patents Company, that is not 3 absolutely correct, but it is as near so as it could be made, and inasmuch as there is no special department for it the data with reference thereto had to be obtained from the various towns and places where those suits were brought. Q. What else have you? A. Two license agreements between the Motion Picture Patents Company and the Gaumont Company, and produced from the files of the Motion Picture Patents Company. Q. I will also examine those. Is that all you have? A. 4 Yes. I have been unable to bring the statements — financial statements — from the books of the General Film Company called for as we were unable to complete the work in time for this morning's session. I might say that is due largely to the fact that I am not myself entirely familiar with the books as yet, and our auditor has been there only a very short time, and it takes us a little longer than usual to prepare statements of that kind.