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 000136 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 #:
000136
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.

31G8 Jeremiah J. Kennedy, Direct Examination. named Ensor called at the company's office at 10 Fifth Avenue. Q. Do you recall the interview? A. I do. Q. Will you tell us about it, briefly? A. Mr. Ensor called and stated that he controlled the Colorado Film Exchange, that he desired to enter into an arrangement with the General Film Company for the control of that entire territory between them, the General Film Company and the Colorado Company, to become secret partners. lie suggested the elimination of all other exchanges. He showed, or he stated, that tremendous prices could be charged for the service under those conditions, because all the other exchanges were too remote to compete, and the difference in transportation alone would afford an enormous profit. I informed him the General Film Company would not engage in any such project or relation. lie called again with a suggestion that the General Film Company make him a proposition for his motion pictures and other exchange property. I informed him that we were unable to do so for the reason that it was our impression that no one could give a clear title to the property, this objection being based upon the fact that it had peddled stock all over that section of the country in which it was located, and that a certain doctor, whose name I don't remember, claimed to hold the controlling interest, although Mr. Ensor claimed that he had never paid for his stock. At the same time, there was litigation threatened, all of which was explained to Mr. Ensor, as our reason for not wanting to continue negotiations. Mr. Ensor stated before departing that he regretted that we were not obliged to operate our own branches. He understood we had acquired or were about to acquire the exchange property of George Kleine and possibly the property of Mr. Buckwalter; that if we went out there to manage that property ourselves, he would meet us at the station and give us a very warm and unhealthy reception, but that we were too foxy for that sort of thing; we would probably send some poor hired man out there that everybody would be too sorry for to interfere with. With that, he departed. He called the next day and stated that lie would have to have something to show for the expenses of his trip to the East and asked as a favor if we would give him an idea of the amount that we would be likely to value his exchange at, his exchange