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 #:
000579
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. 553 I have just referred at page 327 of the record, were made to the same manufacturers, or to the same parties as received these payments out of the undivided net profits referred to in Exhibit 131, except that Selig and Spoor took the place of the Selig and Essanay Companies so far as the twelve per cent, dividends on the common stock are concerned? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, other than these payments shown by Exhibit 131, to the ten manufacturers named, and the payments of twelve per cent, shown in the record at page 327 to which I have just referred, have there been any payments made to any of the manufacturers? A. Payments for motion film supplied? Q. No, I mean any payments out of net earnings? A. No, sir. Q. Now, are there any payments made to any of the directors for their services? A. Yes, sir. Q. What do the directors receive for their services? A. Twrenty dollars, and mileage for each meeting. Q. What payments are made to the President for his services, does he have a stated salary? A. I don't think that I am called upon to answer that question, am I, Mr. Caldwell? Q. I don't see why you should have any objection to it? A. Why, I have decided objection to stating it, Mr. Grosvenor, particularly in view of the fact that the information is being gathered for Mr. MacDonald, of the Kinetograph Company. Mr. MacDonald: I happen to know it in this case, and I will withdraw the question. Mr. Grosvenor : I am not appearing here for the Kinetograph Company representatives, or any other representatives. The Witness : Well, T notice that you have been in consultation with him. Mr. Grosvenor: Mr. Pelzer, the General Film Company is charged here with being an unlawful combination, and in partnership with the Motion Picture Patents Company to monopolize the rental exchange busi