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 000161 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 #:
000161
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. 3193 Q. Do you recall any of the reasons with sufficient clearness to be able to testify regarding them today? A. Yes. Mr. Crawford, who was at the head of that exchange, had been actively engaged, according to information which we considered reliable, in planning for some time to infringe the patents owned by the Motion Picture Patents Company. He had also been accused of using the motion pictures which were leased by his exchange and another exchange in which he was supposed to have an interest, unfairly, in favor of the theatres which he owl ed or controlled, or in which he had a large interest. He had been accused of forcing theatres to give him a percentage of their receipts in return for his not attacking them or competing with them unfairly. Later on. Mr. Kane, who was the manager of his exchange, called upon me to urge me to endeavor to have the license restored, and told me that he had warned Mr. Crawford that the things he was doing would not and could not be tolerated, and that the cancellation of his license was inevitable. Mr. Kane admitted that Mr. Crawford had been guilty of the various offenses with which he had been charged. Mr. Gbosvbnor: I object to this statement as hearsay, and to the conversation as incompetent, and I move to strike out all the testimony of the witness in the preceding answer, so far as the same is a repetition of hearsay and conversations. The Witness : He stated that he was in the East as a special representative of Mr. Crawford and the exchange. and was empowered to make a settlement on any basis that he might consider advisable in connection with the restoration of his license. Later on, a Mr. Graham called, who pleaded for the restoration of the license as a personal matter, for the reason that he had a short while before, induced friends to invest over S.jO.OOO in the exchange, and the conditions were snch that he was afraid that the money would be lost, and that he would be ruined. At the same time he admited that Mr. Crawford had been guilty of the offenses with which he had been charged. I forget just what office he stated he filled in connection with the exchange.