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 000581 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 #:
000581
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, Dibect Examination. 555 ably find me in frequent conferences with persons who are not in entire sympathy with the General Film Com pany. Mr. MACDONALD: T wish to state on the record that I came into these hearings for the first time on Tuesday of this week, and had my appearance entered on behalf of Richard A. Rowland, a preferred stockholder who with his partner owns about one-eighth of the entire preferred stock of the General Film Company; and I came into these hearings for the distinct and only purpose of gaining such information as I could legitimately gain, and acquire for the benefit and for the protection of the preferred stockholders whom I represent at the present time, or may hereafter represent ; and I have been conferring with counsel for the Government and I have been examining the record here and I shall continue to do so as long as I am permitted on behalf of the people whom I represent. I did state to Mr. Pelzer, as he stated here on the record, that I was here for the purpose of gaining information on behalf of the preferred stockholders, and I stated to Mr. Pelzer if his company had not refused me the information which I demanded formally from them, before I came here, it would not have been necessary for me to come to these hearings and to get information in the way that I am now getting it ; I shall continue to demand from his company, both at these hearings, and in such other way as I may have of demanding, any information that I think the preferred stockholders are entitled to have regarding the affairs of the General Film Company. Mr. GROSVENOE: The purpose of this examination is in part as follows. The Government in this case is asking for the dissolution of the General Film Company. It is obvious that if it is shown that the common stockholders who are also directors, have distributed practically the entire net earnings among themselves, the position of the preferred stockholders may be precarious when the dissolution takes place in accordance with the prayer of the petition, and therefore any evidence of this character is necessary in the record in order to accomplish by the Court an equit