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 2
Leaf #:
000523
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:
June 13, 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.

Emanuel Mandelbaum, Direct Examination. 1141 can. You saw Mr. Kennedy, and what happened when you saw him? A. I finally called for Mr. Kennedy, and he came out and I told him that I was about to leave town, and I wanted to know whether he wished to make me an offer before I left. He said that he never intended to make me any offer. So I left the office. The next day I was called up to the General Film Company's office, and, together with Mr. Waters, walked into Mr. Kennedy's office, and in Mr. Waters' presence, Mr. Kennedy gave me an offer which I accepted. Mr. Kennedy asked me whether it was satisfactory. I told him that under the conditions I could not do otherwise but accept. If you wish the price stated, I will state it here. Q. Yes, state the price? A. The price agreed upon was $42,000, $30,000 in deferred payments, in five years; $12,000 preferred stock of the General Film Company. Q. Did you then return home? A. I returned home the following day, that is, after seeing Mr. Waters again, and arranging with him regarding some details as to the books and care of the office under the new management. Q. This was the middle of August, 1910? A. 1910. Q. Then after you returned home, you may state whether the negotiations fell through. Did they or did they not? A. Yes, they did. Q. What was the trouble, briefly stated? A. The first trouble was on account of my refusing to turn over the business when the General Film Company had sent a representative down with a letter asking me to turn over this business. Q. Had anything been put in writing at that time? A. I had nothing in writing, and on the day of the sale or the agreement of sale, I stipulated that I must have a contract before delivery, and this contract must be approved by my attorney. And when the representative of the General Film Company came to our office with the order to turn over the business, I asked him if he had any other papers with him, and he said no. Consequently, I told him that I would not turn over the business until I received my contract, and it was approved by my attorneys. Q. Then the negotiations in the matter were terminated early in September, were they not? A. A week after the representative had called. Q. You may state whether or not the General Film Com