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)

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 #:
000164
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 21, 2023
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.

3196 Jeremiah J. Kennedy, Direct Examination. Mr. Grosvenor: You mean the growth of the business of the General Film Company? The Witness : Yes. I mean the volume of property that we were requested to purchase was away in excess of anything that we had ever dreamed of. By Mr. Kingsley: Q. Was the organization of the Motion Picture Patents Company the result of a desire to monopolize tne motion picture business throughout the United States, or of the desire to be able to do business free from litigation, and under authority of the various conflicting patents which dominated the art? Mr. Grosvenor: Objected to as leading in form. The Witness: Will you read that question, please? The Examiner repeats the question as follows: "Q. Was the organization of the Motion Picture Patents Company the result of a desire to monopolize the motion picture business throughout the United States, or of the desire to be able to do business free from litigation and under authority of the various conflicting patents which dominated the art?" The Witness: It was organized for the purpose of terminating the litigation and the very large expense that accompanied such litigation, and also for the purpose of establishing peaceful and safe conditions which would permit the normal growth and development of the business. By Mr. Kingsley: Q. Did any of the owners of rental exchanges whose motion pictures, stock and equipment you had purchased in behalf of the General Film Company, ever express dissatisfaction with their contracts to you? A. I never heard of any dissatisfaction in that respect.