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 #:
000364
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.

2814 Joseph M. Cummings, Direct Examination. Q. When you took possession of the property, assets and business of the General Film Company in Texas did you examine its books, or did you examine its organization with a view of determining' what changes were necessary so that you might conduct the business in a better way and a more efficient manner? A. I examined the system of bookkeeping, and I actually examined the books. I certainly examined the system of dealing with the exhibitors. Q. Had you ever had any acquaintance with the business of accounting? A. Yes, I was a bookkeeper for eleven years, and have made more or less a study of that. I have acted as an expert accountant at times. Q. And after having examined the bookkeeping system in the General Film Company's office did you find it necessary to change anything? A. Not a thing. Q. Did you find it a comprehensive and a satisfactory and a clear system? A. Very, indeed. If you will allow me to add, that even since I have been in the office the General Film Company has issued orders from time to time which makes the system even more comprehensive than at that time — it is very much more comprehensive in keeping in weekly touch, almost daily touch with the business being done by our exchange at least, and I presume by the others. Q. And have you made these changes in accordance with the suggestions of the General Film Company? A. Every one of them. Q. In dealing with the exhibitors have you followed out the same system of collections that you found in existence in the office of the General Film Company when you took possession of it? A. Yes, the same system. Q. What changes have you made, if any? A. There has been a slight change by order of the head office, the New York office. The method when I came in was to expect the exhibitor to pay for his service, for the week's previous service, by the following Wednesday. That was done in a great many cases voluntarily by the exhibitors, but I found there had been no particular pressure brought to bear on them to make them conform with that rule. About the first of August we were requested by the General Film Company to send our invoices in advance. In other words, every Saturday night Ave billed not for the week just closing, as had been the case, but for the week to come,