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 000182 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 #:
000182
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.

3210 Jeremiah J. Kennedy, Cross Examination. two companies were solely those of licensor and licensee, in fact, the management of the General Film Company was always more or less hostile to the Patents Company. By management in this case, I am referring to the Board of Directors." The Board of Directors of the General Film Company has been made up from the beginning, lias it not, of a representative of each of the licensed producers? A. I cannot vouch for their being representatives. It is composed of Directors elected by the common stockholders. Q. Has anyone at any time since the General Film Company was organized, been a Director of the General Film Company, who was not an officer, a principal stockholder or manager of one of the ten licensed producers? A. Tavo men were elected Directors who had no connection with any producer or importer. Q. When was that? A. That is, Mr. Waters was elected, I think, in May, 1912, and Mr. Pelzer was elected in January of this year. Q. Pelzer has many years been connected with the Edison interests, has he not? A. Yes. Q. And the Mr. Waters to whom you referred was the man that wras made general manager of the General Film Company some time in 1910? A. Shortly after it was organized. Q. And he is now the general manager? A. He is. Q. Has there been any other person on the Board of Directors of the General Film Company who was not a stockholder or principal officer or manager of one of the licensed producers? A. There are two Directors now whose connection with licensed producers is entirely unknown to me, except the fact that they are elected by common stockholders, and most of the common stock is held by the producers. Q. Who are those two? A. Mr. McCarahan and Mr. Bonvillan. Q. How long have1 these two men been Directors? A. Mr. McCarahan has been a Director since late in January, 1914. Q. lias he any connection with the motion picture business other than his directorship on the General Film Company? A. I understand he is in some way connected with the special features that Mr. George Kleine is marketing. Q. Mr. Kleine is one of the ten licensed producers? A.