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 (1913)

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:
1913
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 2
Leaf #:
00040
Language:
English
Collection:
Early Cinema and Government & Law
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:
June 13, 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.

2 658 William Fox, Direct Examination. Inc., Kalem Company, Inc., Melies Manufacturing Company, Pathe Freres, Frank L. Dyer, Samuel Long, J. A. Berst and Gaston Melies ; Mr. Henry Melville, Attorney for George Kleine, Essanay Film Manufacturing Company, Selig Polyscope Company, George K. Spoor and W. N. Selig; James J. Allen, appearing for Vitagraph Coim pany of America, and Albert E. Smith. Mr. Dwight MacDonald, appearing for Mr. Rowland. Thereupon WILLIAM FOX, the next witness subpoenaed by Petitioner, of lawful age, duly sworn, deposed : Direct examination by Mr. Grosvenor: Q. Mr. Fox, what is your business? A. Manager of theatres and exhibitor of motion pictures. Q. Are you connected with The Greater New York Film Rental Company? A. I am, sir; I am President of that company. Q. That is the company of which Mr. Louis Rosenbluh is the general manager? A. Yes, sir. Q. Who has already testified in this case? A. Yes, sir. Q. When did 3^ou start in the motion picture business, Mr. Fox? A. Well, sometime in 1906. Q. And when did you establish The Greater New York Film Rental Company? A. Between 1906 and 1907. Q. And that was a company doing business as a rental exchange, distributing films and projecting machines to exhibitors? A. Yes, and the various other appliances required for the exhibition of motion pictures. Q. In the business of a rental exchange, what is the most important branch, the film business or the projecting machine business? A. Why, the film is the essential part; the others are only just traded in as an accommodation to the trade, practically. Q. They are incidental to the principal business, which is the distribution of the films? A. Yes, sir. Q. The Greater New York Film Rental Company took