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 000200 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 #:
000200
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.

3228 Jeremiah J. Kennedy, Cross Examination. Q. The matter fell through, that is to say, the sale was 110 1 consummated? A. No, we refused to purchase. Q. You do not dispute the fact that subsequently, Mr. ►Swaab's license was cancelled, do you? A. It is a matter of common knowledge. Q. That it was cancelled? A. Yes. Q. Have you read the testimony given by Mr. Mandelbaum, a witness for the petitioner, respecting whom you were asked several questions by Mr. Kingsley, your counsel, on direct examination? A. I have read some of it. Q. Do you dispute the fact that Mr. Mandelbaum saw you at the times he testifies that he did see you in New York? A. I do not know about the dates, but I know we had interviews. I think I referred to them the other day. Q. And they were about the times that he stated they were bad? A. I do not know anything about the dates. I have no recollection of the dates. Q. This interview, or interviews, were in New York? A. They were at New York. Q. And the subject matter discussed was the sale of the business of his company, to the General Film Company? A. Not the business of his company. Q. What was the subject under discussion? A. The sale of his stock and unexpired right in motion pictures, together with the purchase and sale of such new merchandise as he had. Q. Was that matter consummated, that is to say, did you acquire Mr. Mandelbaum's company? A. We did not. T have already testified to that. Q. Was Mr. Mandelbaum's license subsequently cancelled? A. I presume so. Notices were sent to that effect. Mr. Mandelbaum informed me that his license was cancelled. Q. Have you read the testimony given by Mr. Ensor, a witness for the petitioner in this case, respecting whose testimony you were asked certain questions by Mr. Kingsley on your direct examination, several days ago? A. I have read it over very hurriedly. Q. You do not dispute the fact that Mr. Ensor did come to New York and saw you at your office in connection with the sale of the business of his company, to your company? A. I do not dispute that fact at all. Q. That was the matter that was discussed between you?