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 (1914)

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:
1914
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 5
Leaf #:
000224
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 21, 2023
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.

2674 Frank M. Kenney, Redirect Examination. months. I stayed with them at least a year, and I think possibly more. I can't tell exactly. Q. And the reason you made a change at that time was because they had changed their service? A. Well, I was looking over their stuff to see, and it was satisfactory, and I went along with them. Q. What caused you to change back to the licensed service? A. I didn't change from the Lake Shore to the licensed, but from the Lake Shore to the Victor through a dispute Mr. Mandelbauin and myself had, a personal matter that had no bearing on the film situation, and I went to the Victor exchange, which was the Universal service. Q. What was Mr. Mandelbaum's, the Mutual? Well, no, it Avas not in existence then? A. It was not in existence. Q. What had Mr. Mandelbaum been giving you? A. He had been giving me licensed service up to that time — I run along, and I went in under the independent service, that is, the new makes of the independents. Of course, after the license was cancelled they naturally didn't buy any more licensed stuff. Q. For how long a time did you take from the Victor? A. About eight months. Q. And from them you returned to the licensed? A. I went to the licensed. Q. Why did you do that? A. I went with them for the simple reason I was satisfied with the service, but my competitor had quit the licensed service and went to the Lake1 Shore, and the Lake Shore had some system of interlocking or interchanging the third reel so that between two weeks' changes, the result was that half of the time I had the third reel that he run, and he had the third reel that I run, and I simply looked for a service that was clear. Re-examination by Mr. Kingsley: Q. In explaining your service, you did not say whether it was the Victor service, or the General Film Company, but you said you were satisfied with "their" service? Did you mean you were satisfied with the Victor service? A. I mean I was satisfied witli the Victor pictures. Q. It was because of this interlocking system that you