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 #:
000132
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.

3164 Jeremiah J. Kennedy, Direct Examination. Company, either in terms or in substance: "Well, this is the finish of my work ; this is the end of what I set out to do?" A. I did not. I could not have understood what he meant by such a remark. At least, I want to modify that if I may. Q. You may. A. There would be no sense in such a remark. Q. Why did you call up Mr. Marvin with regard to the suspension of the cancellation after you had agreed with •Fox as to the purchase of the motion pictures, stock and equipment of his exchange? A. At the earnest solicitation of Mr. Fox, and I said to Mr. Marvin just what Mr. Fox requested me to say. Q. And that was? A. That was a request, if possible, to have the license restored for the purpose of saving Mr. Fox's face. Q. Did you say to Fox on the occasion of this negotiation, either in terms or in substance, that the General Film Company had to have the field? A. I did not. Q. Did you, on the occasion of your first interview with Fox, take figures relative to prices of motion pictures, stock and equipment of his exchange, from your pocket, and on a second interview, part of the figures from your pocket, and part from the safe? A. No, I never had any figures in my pocket. Q. Did you say to him you had to be careful regarding the keeping of these figures ? A. No, I don't know what, figures he would refer to. I never made such a statement. Q. Did you tell Fox on the occasion of your negotiations with him, either in terms or in substance, that the General Film Company had no right to buy the Greater New York plant if it did not have a license? A. No. Such a statement would have been untrue. Q. Did the General Film Company, as a matter of fact, ever buy the license of a rental exchange? A. No, it did not. Q. Was there competition between the General Film Company and the Greater New York Film Rental Company in the local field? A. There must have been the usual competition between exchanges, but no particular competition. Q. Was any special effort made on the part of the Gen