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 000196 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 #:
000196
Language:
English
Collection:
Early Cinema and Government & Law
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.

3221 Jeremiah J. Kennedy, Cross Examination. Lubin, Philadelphia. These two exchanges were opened on June 6th, 1910, that is to say, the exchange property connected with them was delivered to the General Film Company on that date. Howard Moving Picture Company, Boston, delivered its property on June 13th, 1910. Q. Had that been contracted for prior to June 6th? A. Yes. The exchange property of George Kleine's Boston office was delivered on June 13th, 1910. Q. Had that been contracted for before June 6th? A. Yes, all these had. George Kleine also made delivery of property in his New York office on June 6th, 1910. Those were all, with the exception that the price for George Kleine's exchange property in Denver was agreed upon, but he refused to deliver until a later date, after the experiment of the General Film Company had been tried out, and the same applies to the exchange property of George K. Spoor in Chicago. Mr. P. L. Waters informed the Board that he was willing to accept the price which had been discussed and agreed upon, but the date for delivery would have to be made later, and at a time acceptable to him, but that if he delivered, he would accept the price that was named. Q. Referring again to the minutes for the meeting of October 11th, 1910, the balance of thirty-nine exchanges which the minutes state had been acquired on October 11th, 1910, were acquired by the company between June and October 11th, 1910? A. Yes. Q. Why, in the minutes of October 11th, 1910, do you refer to the cost or estimate of acquiring all the exchanges in the entire country, if it was not your intention at that time to acquire them all? A. To show the rapidity with which we were called upon or requested to purchase exchange property, and to show the magnitude of our obligations in the event of the Board of Directors insisting upon the company's purchasing the properties of exchanges that were offered to us, so as to show no favoritism. T was opposed to the purchase of so much property so rapidly. To put the burden of responsibility entirely on the Board of Directors. Q. Referring to the meetings of the Board of Directors of March 13th, 1911, being Petitioner's Exhibit 84, printed in the record, Volume 1, page 281 and following, that ex