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 #:
00056
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:
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.

674 William P'ox, Direct Examination. Q. After the receipt of this cancellation, you have testified you saw Mr. Kennedy? A. Upon the receipt of that notice, I got in touch with Mr. Kennedy; yes, sir. Q. Will you please state when and where and what took place at the interview? For that purpose, I suggest that you refresh your recollection by reading again to yourself the affidavit referring to that. A. (Witness refers to paper. ) On November 17th, or 18th, I called on Mr. Kennedy and I said — at his office in — well, at his office, anyhow. I said, "Mr. Kennedy, it happened. " I said, "I suppose you are aware of the fact that what I was afraid would happen, did happen, that the license of the Greater New York Film Eental Company has been cancelled." I said, "If I am informed correctly, you had a meeting last Tuesday, November 14th, and on that date, decided to cancel that license. The manufacturers had a meeting." He said, "You are correctly informed. We had a meeting, and at that meeting we decided to cancel your license." I said, "I was afraid of that. I told you that when I met you at No. 200 Fifth Avenue." He said, "That is not the result of any conversation you and I had. The cancellation of this license has nothing to do with our conversation, has nothing to do with the General Film Company." He said, "I don't want you to feel that way about it." I said, "I don't care how you put it, the result is the same. I have had a talk with you, and I was advised to sell out, and I did not sell out, and I predicted and asked you, and you assured me that my license would not be cancelled." I said, "Here it is, here is your notice that you have cancelled it." He said, "Now, Fox, don't take it that way at all. I am your friend ; I am willing to help you. Now, I made you a proposition the last time to buy you out, and to show you I am your friend, now that your license is cancelled, I am still willing to buy you out. How much do you want?" I said, "Well, at our last conversation I asked you for $150,000, and you did not pay it, and cancelled my license. I suppose there is no use of asking for the same — but I really feel that you ought to give me at least $125,000." He said, "I will take that up with the Executive Committee." Q. The Executive Committee of what? A. Of the General Film Company. He said that the Executive Committee is made up of Mr. Berst of the Pathe Freres Company, Mr. Alfred Smith of the Vitagraph Company, and he would see