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 000358 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 4
Leaf #:
000358
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.

2208 Albert J. Gilligham, Direct Examination. from Cleveland and met us at the Knickerbocker Hotel in New York ; we went to my room and held a meeting to decide on the minimum price Ave would accept from the General Film Company for our exchange, and we then went over to No. 10 Fifth Avenue, and there we met Mr. Kennedy. Q. Proceed, and state what was said. A. Mr. Kennedy asked me, "Well, I have an appointment with you gentlemen. What can I do for you?" And then we told him we were there to sell our exchange, and he said, "Are you here for an offer, or for a sale?" and I informed him, to sell if the price was satisfactory. Q. Mr. Mandelbaum was present, was he? A. Yes, sir. Mr. Kennedy looked over some data he had on a table there, and he said, "I will give you sixty thousand dollars for your exchange," and I said, "It is accepted." But I was frank with Mr. Kennedy, and told him in the presence of Mr. Mandelbaum and Gleichman that if I had made the price it would have been a few thousand dollars less than what he offered. Q. Was there ever any threat made to you at any time by anyone connected with the General Film Company, or the Motion Picture Patents Company, that the license of your exchange would be cancelled if you didn't sell? A. There was never any such threat made to me, sir. Q. Or that the General Film Company would open a competitive branch in your territory? A. I never heard of that, sir. Q. Did you make any agreement with the General Film Company verbally or in writing that you would not enter the exchange business? A. No, sir; there was no condition of that kind implied. Q. Or that you would remain in the employ of the General Film Company? A. No, sir; that was not discussed at that time. Q. You were familiar with the clause in your license agreement giving the Patents Company a right to cancel the license on fourteen days' notice without cause? A. Yes, sir; I was familiar with that, and read it very carefully before we signed the license. Q. Did that operate on your mind at all in determining whether you would make an offer of sale or not? A. No, sir. Q. Suppose you had decided to continue in the exchange business, was the supply of pictures at that time being turned