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 #:
000369
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.

Joseph M. Cummings, Cross Examination. 2819 Cross examination by Mr. Grosvenor : Q. Mr. Cummings, how did a Receiver happen to be appointed to take charge of the General Film Company's property in Texas? I mean by that was the branch unsuccessful? A. No, sir, it was on the allegation that it was violating the anti-trust laws of the State of Texas. Q. The Receiver has had possession because the State of Texas brought a proceeding under the anti-trust laws of Texas? A. Yes, sir. Q. And that Receiver has held possession for over a year? A. Fourteen months. Q. You are the representative of the Receiver in active charge of the business? A. Yes, sir. Q. So that, notwithstanding these findings or conclusions you have reached respecting its methods and policy that receivership continues? A. It is none of my business; it does. Q. The receivership does continue? A. Yes, sir, at the present moment. Q. Will you kindly send, to supplement your examination, copies of the several orders of the Court appointing the Receiver and defining his powers? You gave some evidence as to what those orders purported to contain on your direct examination, and I should like to examine the orders in full? A. I will try my best to get copies, Mr. Grosvenor. I have none in my office. Q. I mean send them from Texas. A. I mean I have none there. Q. Have you a record of them? A. No, sir. Q. How, then, could you testify on direct examination as to what they contained? A. I had read it. Q. I thought you stated you had not read it? A. I said 1 have none in my office. Q. Have you any in your office at Dallas? A. No, sir. Q. The order of the Court is your authority for conducting busness? A. The Receiver has them in his possession, and he is two hundred miles or more from me. Q. Well, see if you cannot get a copy and send it in? A. I will do so with pleasure. Q. Has any testimony been taken in that suit? A. No, sir.