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 00048 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 #:
00048
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.

666 William Fox, Direct Examination. Q. In the Fall of the year 1911, speaking from your knowledge of the business, how many of the licensed rental exchanges which you have testified were doing business in New York, were left? A. The Greater New York Film Kental Company, and the new company known as General Film Company. Q. You may state whether or not in September, 1911, you had any conversation with one P. L. Waters in regard to the selling out of your business; Just answer yes or no. A. I did, sir. Q. Who was this P. L. Waters? A. General Manager of the General Film Company. Q. Now, please state how the conversation arose, and what was said, and where it was, and all that you can recall in regard to the meeting? Mr. Kingsley : I object to it as incompetent, immaterial, irrelevant and as hearsay, and as not binding upon the defendants, and as not shown to be a conversation with any officer of the General Film Company, and therefore not binding on the General Film Company, or any of these defendants. Mr. Grosvenor: I think you testified that Mr. Waters was General Manager of the General Film Company. The Witness : I did. The Witness : In the early part of September, 1911, I was sent for, or called up on the telephone by Mr. Waters, and asked to call and see him, and in answer to that telephone communication I did call to see him. Now, if you would allow me to get the matter — when I made this affidavit it was clear and fresh in my mind, and the conversation here (referring to a paper) is almost exactly, as near as I could possibly give it at that time, and of the language that was used at that time, and if you will permit me to — Q. (interrupting) : That affidavit is dated December — A. 16th day of December, 1911 ; about that time. Q. Please refresh your recollection by reading that affidavit, and then state the conversation? A. Well (examining paper) — Q. State to the best of your recollection what was said,