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 #:
000270
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.

2720 W. Allen Kenney. Cross Examination. Q. Three years ago? A. No, sir, I served or the last service that I gave the State as Judge was during the month of December of last year. Q. December of 1913? A. Yes, sir. Q. Then this interest that you have in these three or four motion picture companies, is that a side issue to your judgeship? A. I was Judge — Q. I say was your judgship a side issue to the motion picture business? Mr. Kingsley : I object to that as incompetent, immaterial and irrelevant. Mr. Grosvenor: The question is competent as examining into the competency of this witness to testify at length as to the motion picture business. Mr. Kingsley : It has no competency whatever. The Witness : I will answer that. I was an active practitioner up to about two or three years ago. Then I got into this picture business with an investment, and I got interested in the picture show business, and found it profitable, and now while I am still practicing laAV, and have an office and a partner I attend to very little law business as my interests are very great in the picture show business, and it is necessary for me to look after it as the partner that I had has left Louisville. By Mr. Grosvenor: Q. Your principal business to-day is the motion picture business? A. Yes, sir. Q. There is no competition between these different manufacturers who are furnishing the licensed service in price, is there? A. None that I know of. Q. That is if you want to rent or lease one of their reels or pictures, the price that is quoted you is the same from all the manufacturers provided the reels offered you are of the same age? A. Why, we pay so much per week for service, and that calls for so many reels. Q. So many reels of a certain age? A. First run. Q. You take only the first run? A. In all our houses. Q. And it makes no difference whether the first run pic