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 #:
000180
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.

320S Jeremiah J. Kennedy, Cross Examination. Q. Mr. Smith, Mr. Spoor and others of the defendants have testified that in 1909 and 1910, there were meetings from time to time of the licensed producers, at which meetings those present considered the question of recommending to the Patents Company the cancellation of the licenses of some of the rental exchanges. Is your recollection as to the transactions occurring in 1909 and 1910, opposed to theirs? A. Part of their relations as licensee and licensor gave them the assenting or dissenting voice in certain transactions. Q. Then your recollection is in accord with that of Mr. Smith and Mr. Spoor, in this matter? A. Substantially. Q. It is true, is it not, that under the agreements entered into in 1908, the Patents Company was prohibited from issuing any license to any other producer except with the consent of the producers licensed in December, 1908, said consent being obtained by vote of the licensed producers, taken in the manner provided in the agreement? A. If the agreement provides for it, it is there, of course. Q. I say, is it not the fact, that the agreements entered into in 1908, when the Patents Company started business, provided that the Patents Company should issue no additional licenses except when the licensed producers consented to the issuing of such an additional license? A. You are referring to the manufacturing licenses now? Q. I am referring to the licenses under the camera and film patents, so-called. A. That is true with respect to licenses in the case of a given number, but it is my impression that the Patents Company had a perfect right to grant licenses under certain conditions, without referring to anyone. Q. Is it not the fact that the given number to which you refer, was the number eight or nine, which embraced the total number of manufacturers who were licensed? A. I think it included ten. Q. And ten was the number of original licensees? A. I think so. Q. Now, isn't it the fact that the license agreements and papers and contracts executed in December, 1908, provided, that the Patents Company should issue no additional licenses, that is, no license beyond the number ten, except with the consent of the manufacturers who were licensed in