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 000419 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 #:
000419
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. 397 in his particular department that would be more familiar with it. Q. Who is the assistant auditor? A. We have no assistant auditor. Q. Who is the auditor? A. Mr. Guliek. Q. And who is the chief clerk, or Gulick's chief assistant? A. I don't think we have anybody designated as his chief assistant. Q. Well, who is it that acts in Gulick's absence even though he is not designated? A. We have had a mau named Brink, but he is traveling now, around to the different branches at the present time examining books. Q. And how long has he been there? A. I don't know that exactly, but he has been there sometime, I believe, though. Q. Then, I will excuse you until to-morrow morning. You understand what I have asked you to produce? A. I think I understand it, and I will try to do it. Q. And you will bring these books down, please? A. Yes. Q. Mr. Pelzer, it might facilitate the conduct of your business and the convenience of your office, if you would make an effort to ascertain wThich books contain the summaries, because you see, if you were to bring down a lot of books with details, why it would require some little time, and I might keep them from you longer than otherwise would be occasioned. So, if you will make an effort to bring the books in which those summaries are bound up, I can probably get through with the matter and return them more expeditiously. A. That is what I wanted to know particularly, what summaries you are after. Q. I think I have made it clear. You can confer with your counsel. I have made it as clear as I can for a reasonably intelligent man. A. All right. Mr. Grosvenor: I will introduce at this time, license agreement, dated March 2nd, 1009, between the Motion Picture Patents Company and the Gaumont Company, this agreement having been produced by Mr. Pelzer at the request of Government counsel. The paper is marked "Petitioner's Exhibit No. 127, and is as follows: