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 000416 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 #:
000416
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.

394 William Pelzer, Direct Examination. to such violations? A. I think a large part of that information comes from the exhibitors themselves. Q. Do you mean that if an exhibitor shows unlicensed films he tells you that he is doing it in all cases? A. No, his competitor does. Q. Who is Mr. Braden? A. He is a clerk in the employ of the Patents Company. Q. Does he have any men under him? A. Not to my knowledge. Q. Do you have anything to do with this matter of cancellation of licenses of theatres? A. No, sir. Q. Well, who does? A. Mr. Braden and Mr. Marvin look after all those matters. Q. Then you would not be in a position to know how that information as to theatres is obtained, would you? A. No, sir. Q. And you do not have anything to do with the cancellation of licenses of theatres? A. No, sir. Q. Or with the obtaining of that information? A. No, sir. Q. In regard to the same? A. No, sir. Q. Then, when you stated that the Patents Company had no such force, you simply mean that if it has such force it is not within your knowledge? A. I said personally I had no knowledge of any such force. Q. But you do not mean to say that the Patents Company has no such force? A. I don't believe they have. Q. You cannot say of your own knowledge that they do not? A. No, I would not say that. Q. What is Mr. Braden's full name? A. John Braden, I think it is. Q. And he is located at 80 Fifth Avenue? A. Yes, sir. Q. Is he an office man? A. Yes, sir. Q. Who is Durant Church? A. He is an attorney who makes his headquarters at the Patents Company office. Q. And does he have charge of considerable of the litigation in connection with replevin suits? A. I don't know. Q. Don't you know what his duties are? A. No, sir. Q. You are one of the officers of the Patents Company? A. Yes, sir. Q. And how long have you been such? A. Since someiime in 1011, the early part of 1011. Q. Well, isn't it necessary for you to know, in order