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 000201 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 #:
000201
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. 3221) A. Yes. And in addition, his project to form a consolidation which would control the film business in Colorado and adjacent territory. Q. What other company was doing a rental business in the films of these producers in the territory in which Mr. Ensor was doing business when the General Film Company was organized? A. George Kleine had a branch in Denver, and there was another exchange, the name of which I will have to get from the list. It was managed or owned by a man named Buckwalter, and was commonly referred to as Buckwalter's exchange. Q. Did you acquire that exchange? A. Yes, at a later date. Q. And you acquired the Kleine exchange? A. Yes. Q. You may state whether or not the license of Mr. Elisor's company was subsequently cancelled? A. We received notice to that effect. Q. It was, then, so far as you know? A. So far as I know. Q. What was your objection, did you say, or explain it, to Mr. Ensor's proposition to enter into an arrangement with the General Film Company? A. For a long time it had been common knowledge that the Colorado Film Exchange was a stock jobbing proposition, and that stock was being peddled at the rate of a dollar a share all over the section of the country in which Mr. Elisor was located, that a great deal of the stock had been taken by parties whom Mr. Ensor and others claimed had not paid for it, and there was threatened litigation. Together with the fact that Mr. Ensor himself stated that he was not a practical film man. We believed that we could not get a clear title to the property, and for that reason, and for the reason that we did not want to be involved in any litigation, we refused to have any dealings with him. Q. You testified on direct examination, page 3108, "He," that is, Elisor, "desired to enter into an arrangement with the General Film Company for the control of that entire territory between them, the General Film Company, and the Colorado Company, to become secret partners." You had objection to such an arrangement? A. Yes. It was nor the only time we refused to enter into such an arrangement. Q. As a matter of fact, after Ensor's exchange had its