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 000199 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 #:
000199
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. 3227 me in August, I think, 1910, and to the best of my recollection, he came to New York and persuaded us to purchase the property that he had, in December, 1911. Q. Then at the time Mr. Fox did see you about the sale of the business of the Greater New York Film Rental Company to the General Film Company, there were only two exchanges other than the General Film Company handling the film of the licensed producers, which two exchanges were Mr. Fox's company, the Greater New York Film Rental Company, and this Twin City Company? A. Those are the only two that I remember. Q. You would remember it if there were more than those two, wouldn't you? A. I think I would, although out of sixty, I might make a mistake. Q. Then it is a fact, isn't it, frankly, that those are the only two companies that were doing business in licensed film other than the General Film Company at that time? A. Those are the only two that I remember. That is my answer to your question. Q. Have you read over the testimony given by Mr. Swaab, a witness for the petitioner, whose testimony you referred to on your direct examination several days ago? A. I don't remember referring to his testimony. Q. Mr. Kingsley asked you certain questions about Mr. Swaab's testimony, which questions you answered. Please refer to the record at page 3165. A. I remember answering questions that Mr. Kingsley put to me relative to Mr. Swaab's affairs. Q. Have you read over the testimony given by Mr. Swaab in this case? A. Only glanced over it. I have not had time to read the testimony. Q. You don't dispute the fact that you and Mr. Swaab did have meetings at the times referred to? A. I do not dispute the fact that Mr. Swaab came to the General Film Company's office and said he would remain there until he saw me for the purpose of negotiating the sale of his exchange property. Q. And the matter discussed at your meeting or meetings with Mr. Swaab was the sale of the business of his company? A. And the management of it afterwards. Q. Both those subjects were discussed? A. Yes, and none other.