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 #:
000195
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. 3223 ants' Exhibit 172, or by using Government's Exhibit * Xo. 62, or both of them." The Witness: I am somewhat in doubt as to just what you mean by "organized." The company was organized and held its first meeting in April. At a meeting of the Board of Directors, held on May 27th, 28th, and, I think, the 29th also, 1910, certain exchange property was offered to the Board, and was purchased by the Board. Are those the exchanges that you refer to? 9 By Mr. Grosvexor: Q. I want to know the names of the exchanges which the General Film Company acquired before it commenced doing business. A. The Howard Moving Picture Company, Boston. George Kleine, Boston. Q. You may use Petitioner's Exhibit 62 if that will help you to refresh your recollection. A. Well, there were different days for delivery, and there were proposals accepted at later dates — I mean, there were prices discussed at that meeting, which were rejected, and which were accepted at a later time. I can include all those and give you the circumstances in connection with each one as I go along, if you wish. Q. No, I want to know the names of the exchanges which you, that is, the General Film Company, had when you started business on June 6th, 1910. A. Well, we started on June 6th, 1910, but we had arranged to open other exchanges on June 13th and later dates. Now, what I want to know is, shall I include only the ones that we started with, or the ones which we had arranged to acquire and have delivery at a later date? Q. In answering my question, you can divide the exchanges into two classes. Name those first which you had acquired and whose properties you used in starting in business on June 6th. and secondly, those which you had already arranged to acquire, but whose property had not yet been turned over to yon. A. You have the Howard Moving Picture Company, Boston? Jnst take that out and put it in the second class. Perhaps I had better start all over again. (fc>. Yes. A. George Kleine, Chicago office. Sieginund