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 #:
000184
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.

3212 Jeremiah J. Kennedy, Cross Examination. Q. I say, do you know of any licensed company or producer that has not had a continuous representation on the Board of Directors of the General Film Company? A. None, except the Biograph Company. Q. How long was the Biograph Company unrepresented on the Board of Directors of the General Film Company? A. I should say approximately a year. Q. You organized the General Film Company? A. What do you mean by organized it? Q. Are you unable to understand the word? A. I don't know just what you refer to. If you will specify the part that you think I took, or it is contemplated by your question, I will be able to give you direct information. Q. Who did organize the General Film Company? A. I should say the first Board of Directors, with the exception of possibly Mr. Scull. Q. And who were those? A. Mr. Rock, Mr. Kleine, Mr. Selig, Mr. Spoor, Mr. Berst, Mr. Gaston Melies, Mr. Siegmund Lubin and myself. I think there was one other, whose name I cannot recall at present. Q. There was one representative on that first board from each of the licensed producers? A. There was one man connected with each of the producers or importers. Q. You have always been Treasurer of the Patents Company? A. Yes. Q. You have testified on direct examination, page 3159 : "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." Did you consider yourself, as the Treasurer of the Patents Company, hostile to yourself as President of the General Film Company? A. No, I was figuring on a working quorum being hostile, and it always showed its hostility. That is, not less than seven Directors of the General Film Company. Their hostility was always very marked. Q. Can you give any instance of the manifestation of such hostility? A. Various suggestions having to do witli the reduction of the royalties, the changing of the license conditions to weaken the authority and domination of the Patents Company, and to obtain more freedom, if possible, than the Patents Company licenses and patent rights permit ted.