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 000163 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 #:
000163
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. 3195 of a rental exchange, that it might be put out of business and that the General Film Company might be able to purchase its motion pictures, stock and equipment more readily? Mr. Grosvenor: Objected to as leading in form. By Mr. Kingsley: Q. You may answer. A. I did not. We always had more exchange property offered to us than we were fitted to handle. Q. Did you at any time at a meeting of the producers of motion pictures, vote to recommend the cancellation of a rental exchange that it might be put out of business or that the General 'Film Company might thereby purchase its motion pictures, stock and equipment, more readily? A. I never voted for the cancellation of an exchange after the formation of the General Film Company. Q. In purchasing the motion pictures, stock and equipment of the rental exchange, while acting for the General Film Company, did you pay anything for its license? A. No. Q. Was it necessary for a rental exchange, purchased by the General Film Company, to have a license at the time of the purchase? A. No. We purchased exchange property from an exchange that wras unlicensed. Q. Did you, at any time, while aicting for the General Film Company, pay a large price for the motion pictures, stock and equipment of a rental exchange, which was not making money, and which was doing an unprofitable business at the time? A. We never paid for any property that we purchased from any exchange, a higher price than the property was worth to us, in the conduct of our ordinary business affairs. Q. At the time of the organization of the General Film Company, was it your intention or was it the intention of your associates, so far as you know, to acquire all the rental exchanges throughout the United States? A. It was not. And the growth of the business was something that we were entirely unprepared for.