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)

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 #:
000569
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:
May 23, 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. 5-17 By Mr. Grosvenor: Q. In the record at pages 328 and 329, I asked you certain questions regarding that statement that appears in the minutes of October 11, 1910, which states the payment made for exchanges in October, 1910: "Stock $591,400, Cash, $1,483,200; total payments authorized for all exchanges in entire country, stock, $988,800., cash $2,480,000," at which time you had been unable to find any records of that authorization. Since I asked those questions of you have you obtained any further information? A. No, sir. Q. Have you asked any other officers of the company about that than the persons mentioned on that page of the minutes since I asked you those questions? A. No, sir. Mr. Grosvenor : Referring to Exhibit 7, of the Petition, being the agreement between the Motion Picture Patents Company and the General Film Company, dated April 21, 1910, it is agreed by counsel that said copy attached to the petition is a copy of the agreement entered into between the companies named, on the date stated, April 21, 1910, and that it may be referred to in this record as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 130. and need not be copied into t he-record, subject to correction. Mr. Caldwell: Yes. (}, Mr. Pelzer, you have produced an exchange license agreement between the Motion Picture Patents Company and Ihe Kinetograph Company, being a copy of a printed form, with the names filled in, is that the same exchange license agreement as is already in evidence, and which is attached to the petition as Exhibit 4, being what is known as the regular license exchange agreement entered into between the Motion Picture Patents Company and the rental exchanges? A. Yes, sir. Mr. Grosvenor : This exchange license agreement between the Motion Picture Patents Co., and the Kinetograph Company, of 71 West 23rd Street, is