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 000134 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 #:
000134
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.

31GG Jeremiah J. Kennedy, Direct Examination Film Company, through Mr. Waters, and stated that in agreeing to accept $50 a week compensation, he had overlooked the fact that he had an automobile, that he did not see how he could live and operate an automobile on a compensation of $50 a week, lie further, after a few days, became very insistent in his demands for his contract. He indicated by the tone of his communications a dissatisfaction, or not a complete satisfaction with the terms of his sale, although I stipulated at the beginning of our negotiations that he must not accept — stipulated that we would conduct our negotiations subject to the condition that he would not agree to accept any price which was not entirely satisfactory. Being in doubt as to whether Mr. Swaab was satisfied or not, prompted me to terminate the negotiations and cancel the entire transaction. I may sajr that Mr. Swaab had no communication with the General Film Company prior to his coming to the office and insisting upon our negotiating with him for the purchase of the exchange property which he had. Q. Do you recall having negotiated on behalf of the General Film Company for the purchase of the motion pictures, stock and equipment of Wig Lake Shore Film & Supply Company's exchange, located at Cleveland, Ohio, with one Emanuel Mandelbaum, a witness in this case? A. Yes, I conducted the negotiations with Mr. Mandelbaum. Q. Will you give us, briefly, the history of those negotiations? A. Mr. Mandelbaum called at the office one afternoon without any appointment having been made in advance, and requested that we consider the purchase of the motion pictures and other exchange property which the Lake Shore Company owned. I explained to Mr. Mandelbaum that we were not very well equipped to take on any more business at that time, but on his insisting, we proceeded with the negotiations, subject to the condition that if they were concluded, Mr. Mandelbaum would remain in charge of the exchange and manage tin1 property for us. The question of price was next discussed, and Mr. Mandelbanm had estimated that lie should receive $75,000 for the entire property. He stated that he computed that on 'lie hasis of his earnings capitalized at ten per cent., or on a ten pei cent, basis. I showed him that that was entirely unreasonable, for the reason that the permanence of the