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)

Page scan 00043 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:
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 #:
00043
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.

William Fox, Direct Examination. 661 By Mr. Grosvenor : 1 Q. He was the same Mr. MacDonald who had been connected with the Film Service Association? A. He was the MacDonald who was the Secretary of the Film Association. Q. Well, just continue your testimony now in regard to this meeting in January, 1909. Mr. Kingsley: I wish to enter an objection now to any conversation that the witness may detail that he may have had with Mr. MacDonald. 2 By Mr. Grosvenor: Q. You understand that I want you to tell what transpired at this meeting of rental exchanges? A. Yes. Q. And not any private conversations you have had with Mr. MacDonald, but any that you had in the presence of others at this meeting? A. What I have stated already did transpire at the meeting room. Q. How many rental exchanges were represented there, approximately? A. Well, as to that, I am not sure, whether fifty or sixty or seventy, I do not know the exact number. Q. A number? A. Yes, there, either in person or by proxy. I said, "Mr. MacDonald, when you were acting as Secretary for the Film Service Association — " Mr. Kingsley: I wish to enter objection to any conversation that the witness may relate that occurred between him and Mr. MacDonald, as being hearsay, incompetent and irrelevant, and in no sense binding upon any of these defendants. Mr. Grosvenor : These were not conversations, but A 4 speeches delivered at the meeting. The Witness: This was a speech addressed to Mr. MacDonald, who was there representing the manufacturers, and for whom he was. reading this agreement. Mr. Kingsley: I make the same objection to any speech that may have been made at the meeting. The Witness: I said, "Mr. MacDonald, when you passed