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 #:
000183
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, Gross Examination. 3211 Yes. But Mr. Kleine did not vote any stock for Mr. McCarahan. Q. Who is this other man that you have named? A. Mr. Bonvillan. Q. Has he had any previous experience with the motion picture business? A. I know nothing of las connection with Che business prior to either December of last year or January of this year. Q. What is his connection in the motion picture business today? A. He is connected in some capacity with Pathc Freres. Q. Then the truth is, isn't it, Mr. Kennedy, that this man that you have just named, takes Berst's place as the representative of Pathe Freres on the Board of Directors of the General Film Company? A. I don't know. Q. You suppose he does, don't you? A. I am not supposing anything of the kind. Q. Does Pathe Freres have any other representative? A. Not that I know of. Q. Isn't it a fact that each one of the licensed producers has had a representative on the Board of Directors ever since that company was organized? A. It is not. Q. Which of the licensed producers has not had a representative on the Board of Directors at all times? A. The Biograph Company. Q. Are you the President of the Biograph Company? A. Yes. Q. And you are today the President of the General Film Company? A. I am. Q. And you are a Director of the General Film Company? A. I am. Q. And your company owns half the stock of the Patents Company? A. It does. Q. And it has ever since the Patents Company was organized? A. It has. Q. Can you name any other company that has not had a representative on the Board of Directors of the General Film Company at all times since the General Film Company was organized? A. I am not able to state positively yes or no. I do not know their relations. They may be in the same relative position that the Biograph Company was when it had no representation. The Board was full just the same.