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 000578 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 #:
000578
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.

552 William Pelzer, Direct Examination. George K. Spoor, William N. Selig, and Vitagraph Company of America. Q. Now, of those names which you have just given, eight are also in this list of ten manufacturers to whom you have testified payments were made as shown on this exhibit (131) out of the undivided net profits for the years 1910 and 1911? A. Eight of them are so named. Are named in that list, is that what you mean? Q. I think I can make it a little clearer. That is to say, eight of those ten manufacturers getting payments, as shown on this Exhibit 131, are also common stockholders in the General Film Company? A. Yes, sir. Q. And the other two common stockholders, namely, Selig and Spoor, are, respectively, the presidents of the Selig Polyscope Company and the Essanay Film Manufacturing Company, the two other manufacturers which also received payments out of the undivided net profits? A. Yes, sir. Q. And these men, Selig and Spoor, are also directors, and were during the years 1911 and 1912 of the General Film Company? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, you have testified that these payments shown by Exhibit 131, were payments made under contract, and not payments made to them as common stockholders of the General Film Company, is that right? A. Yes, sir. Q. To what contract are you referring? A. The contract referred to as Exhibit 8, on page 116 of the original Petition, that being one of the contracts. Q. And that being the contract l>etween the General Film Company and the Edison Manufacturing Company? A. Yes, sir. Q. And there are nine other practically identical contracts between the General Film Company and each of the other nine manufacturers? A. Yes, sir. Q. And all entered into on the same date, April 21, 1910? A. I believe so. Q. You have produced in this case a statement of the dividends paid on the preferred and common stock of the General Film Company, which appears at page 327 of the record, showing that twelve per cent, has been paid out of the net earnings for the years 1910, 1911 and 1912 oti the common stock. Those payments of twelve per cent. out of the net earnings as shown by that exhibit to which