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 #:
000499
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.

Warren R, Palmer, Direct Examination. 2945 Q. How long did you continue your business after April, 1910? A. Until the General Film Company purchased the exchange. Q. When was that? A. The first negotiations were entered into on June 19th. Q. When was the sale made? A. I believe it was consummated by our giving over our stock and offices on July 1st. Q. Did you conduct the negotiations on the part of your company? A. I did. Jointly with Mr. Mock. Q. At what price did you sell? A. Approximately $20,000. Q. Payable part in stock? A. Part in preferred stock, part in cash, and part in deferred payments over a term of five years. Q. Was that sale voluntary? A. It was. Q. With whom did you conduct the negotiations on the part of the General Film Company? A. To my best recollection, with Mr. Waters and Mr. Kennedy. Q. Did either Mr. Waters or Mr. Kennedy or anyone else make any threat to you, direct or indirect, that if you did not sell, your license might be cancelled? A. No one did. Q. Did you know that there was a clause in your exchange license agreement permitting the Patents Company to cancel that license without cause on fourteen days' notice? A. I did. (>. Did that operate on your mind in any way to induce you to make the sale? A. No, I cannot say that it did. Q. At that time, had the General Film Company gone into business, established a branch in your territory? A. No. Q. Or near your territory? A. Not that I know of. Q. Well, did the fact that the General Film Company might thereafter be a strong competitor of yours have any inducement in your mind in making the sale? A. No. Q. Assuming that your license had been cancelled by the Patents Company, was there enough unlicensed motion pictures available in the market to enable you to conduct your business at that time? A. I believe there was. Q. Did you make any agreement with the General Film Company not to engage in business in future, in the film business? A. No.