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 000417 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 #:
000417
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. 395 to properly perform your duties of Secretary, what the other officers are doing, and their duties and the duties of employees? A. Oh, not necessarily. Mr. Church is not an officer of the Patents Company. Q. But his offices are at the Patents Company offices? A Yes, sir. Q. Now, what does he do up there? A. I don't know. Q. Does he draw any salary? A. I don't know. Q. Did you ever have any occasion to consult or confer with him? A No, sir. Q. Did you ever consult or confer with him at the offices of the Patents Company? A. Do you mean relating to matters of the Motion Picture Patents Company? Q. I said, did you ever have occasion to consult or confer with him at the offices of the Patents Company? A. I asked you what you meant, whether you meant in connection with matters of the Motion Picture Patents Company? I may have talked with him about personal matters. Q. Did you ever consult with him there about matters relating to the business of the Patents Company? A. No, sir. Q. Where are his offices up there? A. He occupied a part of a desk in the main office of the company. Q. A part of a desk? A. Yes, it is a double desk. Q. Who occupies the other part of his desk? A. Mr. P>raden. Q Now, Mr. Braden is the man who looks after this matter of cancellation of licenses with Mr. Marvin? A. He looks after all complaints. Q. And does Church have anything to do in the same matters? A. I don't think so; I never knew him to have anything to do with it. Q. What does he have to do? A. I don't know that he has anything to do. Q. You mean he has a desk there, that he just stayw there, and does not do anything? A. No, I don't mean that at all. He is very seldom at the office. Q. Does his name appear as an attorney on the bulletin of the building of the Patents Company? A. I don't think so. I never saw it. Q. Is your knowledge and information, Mr. Pelzer, as