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 000198 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 #:
000198
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.

3226 Jeremiah J. Kennedy, Cross Examination. Q. What did you meet for? A. We did not meet at all, as your question implies. Mr. -Fox, at the first meeting, came to the General Film Company's office. I was not there. I did not know of his coming. I learned of his presence after he had been there some time. The other interview to which I refer was at my office, and was at the request of Mr. Fox, who called. Q. I am not asking you as to the request, and who called the meeting. The fact is that the subject you discussed when you did meet, was the sale of Mr. Fox's business, that is, the business — A. While we were together, that is the business that we discussed. Q. That is, the sale of the business of the Greater New York Film Rental Company to the General Film Company? A. Yes. Q. How many of the formerly licensed rental exchanges at the time that Mr. Fox called and sawr you, were still doing business in licensed motion pictures? A. I remember, offhand, only two. Q. And what two were those? A. One was called, I think, the Twin City Calcium Light & Film Company, and the other was the Greater New York Film Rental Company. Q. One of the two companies you have named was Mr. Fox's company? A. Yes. Q. Well, isn't it a fact that there were no other companies at that time handling licensed films, that is, the films of the licensed producers, except the General Film Company, the Greater New York Film Rental Company, and possibly this Twin City Calcium & Stereopticon Company of Minneapolis? A. I think I have already stated that offhand I could remember only two in addition to the General Film Company, and there is no "possibly" about the Twin City Company, because that company was not acquired, I am sure, until a later date. Q. It was acquired by the General Film Company at a later date? A. At the earnest solicitation of its owner. The owner of the Twin City Company had solicited us to purchase his exchange property for, I should say, a year and a quarter, or more. I can give you the exact time, if you want me to refer to my records. Q. A year and a quarter before Mr. Fox came to see you? A. It would be about the same. Q. Before this date in November, 1911? A. He wrote