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 6
Leaf #:
000127
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.

Jeremiah J. Kennedy, Direct Examination. 3159 Q. Did anyone .stale in your hearing that a portion of the royalties collected by the Motion Picture Patents Company would be used to form a gigantic fund for litigation? A. Xo one ever made such a suggestion. 8uch an idea was never considered. Q. Were yon, subsequent to December 18th, 1908, and during the early months of 1909, present ai any meeting or gathering of producers of licensed motion pictures at which the witness Lodge was also present? A. I was not, according to the best of my recollection. I have no record of being present at such meeting, either. Q. Were you present at any meeting of the licensed producers of motion pictures after the 1st of January, 1009, at which the witness Lodge was present, where there was any discussion whatever, relative to the possibility of forming a rental exchange which should be owned by the licensed producers, and operated by them? A. I was not, and I never heard the idea advanced, until I suggested it myself, about a year after December 18th, 1908. Q. About what time was it that you made this suggestion or discussed the proposition? A. I told the guests who were present at a dinner on or about December 18th, 1909, that in my opinion, they would eventually provide a reliable and impartially conducted source of supply for the exhibitors. Q. What were the reasons that caused you to believe that such an exchange should be organized? A. The many abuses and evils that existed in the business at that time, and during the whole time, prior to that time that I was connected with the business, and which evils and abuses were the subject of many complaints to the Biograph Company, and to the Motion Picture Patents Company, by exhibitors and exchanges. Q. Did the Motion Picture Patents Company own any interest whatever in the General Film Company? A. It never had any interest, and no provision was ever made for its having any interest. The relations of the two companies were solely those of licensor and licensee. In fact, the management of the General Film Company was always more or less hostile to the Patents Company. By management, in this case, 1 am referring to the Board of Directors. Q. Will you specify what, in your judgment, were the