Start Over

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 #:
000179
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.

Jeremiah J. Kennedy, Cross) Examination. .">20T ters at the same time that you have been the President of the General Film Company? A. Yes. Q. So that to-day your entire time is not devoted to the General Film Company? A. Not entirely. Q. II ow much of your time is devoted to the General Film Company? A. Oh, I cannot say. That varies. Q. Do you devote the bulk of your business hours to the affairs of the General Film Company? A. Well, I have no business hours, but I devote the bulk of my time to the General Film Company. Q. And that has been true of the time in which you have been President of the General Film Company? A. Yes. Q. Have you read with care the testimony which you gave two or three days ago, and which has been put in printed form? A. I have glanced over all of it. I do not know that I have read it with very great care. Q. This morning, before the resumption of your direct examination, you made such corrections and amendments in your testimony as seemed to you advisable after reading it? A. No. To have the testimony appear as T intended it to appear. Q. I say, you have made all such amendments and corrections as seemed to you desirable after reading it? A. All that I noticed. Q. On page 3157 you testified : "Did any of the other producers of motion pictures, aside from the Edison Company and the Biograph Company, have any stock or any financial interest whatever in the Motion Picture Patents Company? A. None of them had any interest directly or indirectly, or any say in the management of the business or the affairs of the company. Their relations with the Motion Picture Patents Company were solely those of licensees to licensor." I show you, for the purpose of refreshing your recollection, exhibit to the petition numbered two, and also exhibit to the petition numbered three. Isn't it the fact that it was provided in the agreements which were contemporaneous with the beginning of business by the Patents Company, that 24 per cent, of certain royalties collected by the Patents Company were to be divided among the licensed producers? A. Yes, that is part of the relation of licensee and licensor.