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 000207 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 #:
000207
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. 3235 burdens and evils which were common to it, was only an experiment. It was tried with a view of finding out if it were a remedy. If not, some other remedy would be undertaken, and that was the only idea in starting the General Film Company. Q. You started it, in your judgment, as an experiment? A. As an experiment, as the means most likely to afford the relief and accomplish the objects desired. Q. When did the General Film Company cease to be an experiment? Mr. Kingsley : I object to the question on the ground that it does not appear in the evidence that the General Film Company has ever ceased to be an experiment. The Witness: It is still an experiment. By Mr. Grosvenor: Q. And it was still an experiment at the time of your interview with Mr. Fox, at which time, as you have testified, none of the licensed exchanges were then in business except his, and this Twin City Calcium Company in the West? A. It was very much of an experiment, and a doubtful one. Q. Did you consider the other exchanges doing business, also experiments? A. I never gave any thought to whether they were experiments or not, except when their owners referred to them as such. Q. Then, in your judgment, the General Film Company was the only experiment in the exchange business? A. No, I say other exchange owners referred to their business as probably fleeting and evanescent, or an experiment, and that was the principal reason they gave for trying to induce the General .Film Company or someone else to assume the risk. Q. In what business were you engaged in the interim between your holding the office of President of the General Film Company? A. Engaged in conducting my regular engineering practice, as President of the Hall Switch & Signal Company, Vice-President and Treasurer of the Hall Signal Company, and various other business connections. I was also Treasurer of the Armat Company.