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 #:
000580
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.

554 William Pelzer, Direct Examination. ness and manufacturing business. My object is to show that the General Film Company is merely a partnership among these ten manufacturers. The Witness : I wish to state that Mr. MacDonald stated to me this morning that he would secure the information that he was after and that he was going to secure it in this way. Mr. Caldwell : Counsel for the defendants request the Examiner to note on the record that Mr. MacDonald has been conferring here with counsel for the petitioner during the cross examination of this witness. Will you also, Mr. Examiner, read the remarks of Mr. MacDonald just made wherein he withdrew the question, and stated that he already had the information? The remarks of Mr. MacDonald which the Examiner is requested to read are as follows : "Mr. MacDonald : I happen to know it in this case, and I will withdraw the question." The Witness : I also wish to state that according to the trade papers, Mr. MacDonald is also an officer of the Kinetograph Company, and I also wish to note the fact that another gentleman connected with the Kinetograph Company, is present in the room, whom I believe is the auditor of that company, and a former auditor of the General Film Company. Mr. Grosvenor: You mean Mr. Who? The Witness: Mr. Repton. Mr. Grosvenor : He has been subpoenaed. As you seem to be somewhat exercised, Mr. Pelzer, in this matter, and seem to think it an impropriety for counsel for the Government to confer with anyone, let me state to you that I always deem it the duty of counsel for the Government to confer with any one in connection with any case brought by the Government, which person, conferred with, complains that he, or his client, has in any way been injured by the companies being prosecuted, or is likely to be so injured; and you will prob