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 00046 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 #:
00046
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.

664 William Fox, Direct Examination. The Witness: Prior to the signing of the agreement I called Mr. MacDonald on the -phone. If it is your object to confuse me by putting in these objections — Mr. Kingsley : My object is that I am not going to have any colloquy with you, and I will put my objection on the record, and when I object I insist that you suspend. The Witness: Well, I will do that in the future. Mr. Kingsley : I have no right to confuse you, but I shall object now as a matter of business. I have a right to make objections on the record, and I will say that I am not making this statement to the witness as an apology at all. The Witness: Then I will wait until you get your objections all in. Prior to the signing of the contract I called Mr. Dwight MacDonald on the 'phone. By Mr. Grosvenor: Q. Where was he located? A. At 80 Fifth Avenue, at the office of the Motion Picture Patents Company, holding some office, I can't think what officer he was, he was a General Manager of some kind. Q. Yes. A. And I said, "MacDonald, I have before me the license agreement, and I understand you have 'phoned our office several times asking whether or not we were going to sign it. I am hesitating as to advising my company to sign this license agreement without having your assurance as to what the actual result of this agreement is going to be." "Why," he said, "Fox, you are foolish. There ought not to be any question or doubt in your mind; all this means is that we want the price of the film, and so long as you pay for it, and so long as you rent film in accordance with the agreement as they are giving it to you, they are going to continue to ship you film, and I have been told by the manufacturers to say, as I have said before to you, that the life of this agreement depends entirely on the life of the patents under which this agreement is given to you, and until the expiration of those patents we will continue to furnish you film so long as you live