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)

Page scan 000133 from 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 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 #:
000133
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 12, 2024
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. 3165 eral Film Company to induce the customers of the Greater New York Film Rental Company to leave it? A. No. We paid no attention whatever to the Greater New York's customers, or to the customers of any other exchange. Q. Do you recall negotiations between the General Film Company and Lewis Swaab, of Philadelphia, relative to the sale of motion pictures, stock and equipment of his exchange? A. Very clearly. Q. How far did those negotiations progress? A. They progressed to the point of having agreed upon a price and time for the delivery of the property, the conditions in that respect being rather unusual. Q. In what respect were they unusual? A. They were unusual in respect of the time of delivery, which was to be not less than two months from the time at which the conference was held. We had no one available to receive or take possession of, or work the property, and part of the conditions under which we agreed to purchase was in view of our not being able to receive or handle the property, but Mr. Swaab should remain in charge of it for two months, until we could find someone to assign to the care and operation of it. Q. Was the negotiation consummated? A. No, I terminated the negotiations as President of the company. Q. Under what conditions? A. I entered into them reluctantly. One of the conditions under which we purchased, was that Mr. Swaab should remain in charge of the property for at least two months at a merely nominal salary, and that such services should be included as a part of what we purchased, and be included in the price we agreed to pay. The compensation was fixed at $50 a week. There was another condition, the other condition being that a number of contracts between the owners of exchanges who sold property to the General Film Company and that company, remained to be drawn, and I refused to give the contract between Mr. Swaab and the General Film Company precedence over the others who had closed their negotiations before he had. Therefore, Mr. Swaab was informed that it might be several weeks before his contract would be ready, but it would be ready before the expiration of the two months. Immediately on Mr. Swaab's return to Philadelphia, he communicated with the General