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 #:
00057
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.

William Fox, Direct Examination. 675 what they have got to say. I then tried to reach Mr. Ken 1 nedy by telephone several times between that time and the latter part of November, and was unable to do so, and finally one day located him at his office and called there and he said, "I am awfully sorry, Fox, I have been unable to arrange that executive meeting as yet, but as soon as I do, I will let you hear from me." I sort of felt as though something might happen to me, so I said to Mr. Rosenbluh, "You had better get in touch with Mr. Berst and arrange a conference for me" — o Mr. Caldwell (interrupting) : Any conversation between the witness and Mr. Rosenbluh is objected to as merely hearsay. By Mr. Grosvenor: Q. Do not state your conversation with Mr. Rosenbluh. You may state whether or not you sent Mr. Rosenbluh to Mr. Berst to arrange for an interview between you and Mr. Berst. A. I did. Q. Your cancellation notice which you received on November 14th became effective December 4th? Am I correct in 3 that? A. On Monday, the 4th day of December, yes, sir. Q. You may state whether or not you had this meeting with Mr. Berst, and whether that meeting was before December 4th. A. It was before December 4th. I had a meeting with Mr. Berst and it was before December 4th. Q. And where was that meeting? A. At the office of the Pathe Freres Company. Q. Please state to the best of your recollection what was said at that meeting? Mr. Caldwell : That question is objected to as in 4 competent. Any conversation between the witness and Mr. Berst, who is not shown to have any authority to bind the defendants in this action. Mr. Grosvenor: This evidence is introduced as against all the defendants. The Witness : I said, "Mr. Berst, now, you are aware that my license has been cancelled, and I came here to ask you to intercede on my behalf for the reinstatement of my license."