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 #:
000359
Language:
English
Collection:
Early Cinema and Government & Law
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.

Joseph Mi. Oummings, Direct Examination. 2809 Q. Unlicensed film? A. Yes, sir. Q. And did yon take on new customers from time to time? A. All the time. Q. Did this business increase or diminish while you were with him? A. My business got better all the time. Of course, in our business on the road it is up and down. Q. You had very good success? A. I felt so. JOSEPH M. CUMMINGS, the next witness produced on behalf of the defendants, of lawful age, being first duly sworn by the Examiner, deposes as follows: Direct examination by Mr. Kingsley: Q. Where do you live? A. Dallas, Texas. Q. In what business are you engaged, Mr. Cummings? A. Representative for the Receiver for the General Film Company in the State of Texas. Q. Is the business and property of the General Film Company in the State of Texas now in the hands of a receivership? A. It is, yes, sir. Q. Are you the Receiver? A. No, sir. Q. Who is the Receiver? A. H. A. Wroe of Austin. Q. What relationship do you bear to the Receiver in respect to the business of the receivership? A. As he was not a resident of Dallas, and had very important business in Austin, some 200 miles away, he got me to go up there and take charge of the business as resident manager or as representative, whatever you may call it. Q. When was the receivership for the General Film Company's property and business in the State of Texas ordered? A. October 18th, 1912. Q. Since that time have you been continuously in charge of the property and business of the General Film Company in the State of Texas? A. Yes, sir; that is, as representative of the Receiver. Q. Have you personally been transacting the business for the Receiver in the management of the property and business of the General Film Company, since that time? A. Yes, sir. I have been continuously there except when called away on business. Q. Had you been in the motion picture business at any