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 000197 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 #:
000197
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.

Jeremiah J. Kennedy, Cross Examination. 3225 hibit gives a list of the licensed exchanges not purchased at that time by the company. Please examine that list. A. I have examined it. Q. The minutes state, page 282 : "The following statement of licensed exchanges in the United States was submitted for the information of the Board."' Was that statement submitted by you? A. Every statement submitted was submitted by me. Q. Then that statement was submitted by you? A. Yes. If the statement was submitted. I have no recollection of it, of course. Q. That statement shows: "Total number of licensed exchanges when General Film Company commenced business, June 6th, 1910, sixty-nine; number of exchange licenses cancelled since June Gth, 1910, eleven/' Does the latter statement refresh your recollection as to the licenses of exchanges having been cancelled in the period of time than the General Film Company was acquiring these exchanges? A. 1 have no recollection to be refreshed. That information Avas common to everybody, and it was received in the ordinary course of business. Q. It was known, then, generally, that the licenses of certain of the exchanges were being cancelled from time to time in the period, by the Patents Company? A. Yes. The Patents Company sent notices to that effect to all exchanges. Q. You referred on direct examination to certain testimony given by Mr. Fox, a witness for the petitioner in this case. You recall having those interviews with Mr. Fox? A. I recall two interviews very clearly. Q. Did you read the testimony given by Mr. Fox in this case? A. I just glanced over it. I am not familiar with it. Q. The subject discussed at those meetings was the matter of the sale of the business of the Greater New York Film Rental Company to the General Film Company, is that right? A. That was the subject that was discussed at the request of Mr. Fox. Q. I am not asking you at whose request it was discussed, but that was the subject which you and Mr. Fox met to discuss? A. It was. Q. And you met — A. We did not meet to discuss it. I cannot agree to that.