United States of America v. Motion Picture Patents Company and others (1914)

Record Details:

Title:
United States of America v. Motion Picture Patents Company and others
Date:
1914
Publisher:
Washington, D.C. : United States. Government Printing Office
Volume:
United States of America v. Motion Picture Patents Company and others
Leaf #:
00019
Language:
English
Collection:
Government & Law and Books
Format:
Books
Contributor:
Media History Digital Library
Sponsor:
Media History Digital Library
Coordinator:
Media History Digital Library
Description:
Date Added:
December 21, 2023
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.

13 pany not only commenced business with the intent just stated but it accomplished its intent. (See main brief, pp. 151-155.) The oppressive methods employed by the General Film Company and the Motion Picture Patents Company in acquiring a monopoly were proven conclusively by the testimony of the Government witnesses. If a company refused to sell to the General Film Company its license was canceled by the Patents Company under the direction of the defendants, who were also directors of the General Film Company. Some exchanges had their licenses canceled to serve as examples to the others. These cancellations were published broadcast throughout the country on circulars and bulletins distributed to all remaining exchanges and to all theaters. On this point see main brief, pages 164: to 209. It is noteworthy that the testimony of not one of the Government's witnesses on the essential facts of cancellation was contradicted by any witness for defendant. Contradiction at most went to the subject of what was said at meetings, but defendants' witnesses did not deny the fact of cancellation, that meetings were had on the dates testified to by plaintiffs' witnesses, and the subject discussed was purchase or cancellation as the case might be. For examples of circulars sent to rental exchanges and exhibitors see main brief, pages 219 to 232.