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 #:
000382
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.

2832 Max Milder, Cross Examination. Cross examination by Mr. Grosvenor : Q. Mr. Milder, when you were with the Lake Shore Film Exchange, at Cleveland, did you have any interest in the business? A. Absolutely none. Q. Or any share in the profits? A. No, sir. Q. You were one of the employees? A. Yes, sir. Q. Were you one of the important employees? Mr. Kingsley : Objected to, as calling for the conclusion of the witness. The Witness : I don't know whether I was important. I had charge of the shipping department. That was an important position around there so far as getting the shipments off to the exhibitors in time. Q. Did you have anything to do with the booking? A. Of the films? Q. Yes. A. No, sir. Q. And by "in charge" of the shipment department you mean simply that you had charge of the expressmen, or to seeing that the films went out on time? A. Yes, sir, that they went out on time, and seeing that the exhibitors were taken care of in the city. Q. Did you have anything to do with the accounting department? A. No. Q. You left the Lake Shore Film Exchange a few months after its license was cancelled, and went directly to the General Film Company? A. Yes, sir. Q. And you have been in the employ of the General Film Company since that time? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you have anything to do with the negotiations with Mr. Kennedy regarding the sale of the Lake Shore Film Exchange to the General Film Company? A. No, sir. Q. Is it not a fact that shortly before the license of the Lake Shore Film Exchange was cancelled the General Film Company opened a branch office in Cleveland? A. Yes, sir. Q. Today in your business as manager of the General Film Company's branch does not the larger part of your business consist of the leasing of the new films? A. What do you mean by that? Q. If the question is not clear I will change it, How many new films, that is, new reels do you receive each week