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 000202 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 #:
000202
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.

3230 Jeremiah J. Kennedy, Cross Examination. license cancelled, and you had acquired Kleine's exchange and this other exchange out there which you referred to, you did have the whole business? A. The two exchanges that we operated, they supplied all that territory, but not with the object of charging extraordinary prices, but for the purpose of maintaining and building up the trade. Q. You then got the whole business without entering into any arrangement with Mr. Ensor? A. Do you mean the business in motion pictures in that territory? Q. You got the entire business of handling the pictures of these licensed producers in that territory? A. Not in that territory, but supplied from offices in that territory. We had competition. Q. What was the date of your interviews with Mr. Crawford and Mr. Graham in regard to the affairs of the Western Film Exchange? A. I had no interview with Mr. Crawford. I would not know him if I saw him. Q. You did see parties who had interests in that exchange on the subject of the purchase by the General Film Company of the business of the Western Film Exchange? A. With reference to the purchase of the business of the Western Film Exchange? 1 never discussed that with anyone. I never had any such interview. Q. The license of the Wrestern Film Exchange was cancelled in July, 1910, was it not? A. I don't know the date. It was cancelled some time in the Summer, I should say. Q. And was it cancelled in this period that you were acquiring many of the other exchanges? A. Oh, yes. Q. Did you acquire Mr. Boone's company? A. You mean the Theatre Film Supply of Birmingham? Q. Yes. A. We did. Not the company, but the property which we could use. He had other property which was ex eluded from the contract, the same as Pearce & Sheck, and the Pittsburg Calcium Light & Film Company, and others. Q. You are today President of the General Film Company? A. I am. Q. What per cent, of the total revenues of the General Film Company is derived from the leasing of films to exhibitors? A. I should say approximately between 90 and 95 per cent. Q. And these films are the positive motion picture films which are shipped out from your several branches to the