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 #:
00068
Language:
English
Collection:
Early Cinema and Government & Law
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.

686 William Fox, Direct Examination. wanted to have the business — the license reinstated, with the Greater New York Film Kental Company, so that the General Film Company then could buy the Greater New York Film Rental Co. He said, "Of course, if you have that license reinstated, then you might keep on doing business the same as before until all the papers are signed, are signed up, and that will take care of the film service for your theatres that you are worrying about." He said, "Now, just a minute, and I will arrange that." He called up Mr. Marvin. He said, "I have got Fox, of the Greater New York, here, and I am arranging to buy his plant for the General Film Company." He said, "You know Mr. Marvin is the Vice-President of the Motion Picture Patents Company. He is the man that signed the cancellation of your license, didn't he?" I said, "I think he did." He said, "I am negotiating to purchase Fox's plant; in fact, we have agreed on the terms, and the price and everything, but," he said, "I find that I do not want to buy the plant without the license is reinstated." He said, "You know, Marvin, I don't want this same condition to exist in this case as it did in the Marcus Loew case, as it did in the People's Vaudeville — the People's Exchange, where, instead of reinstating the license, you just extended the cancellation notice for a few days longer and in signing the papers that were necessary for the sale of that plant, you had to write several of those letters, and," he said, "it was quite a complicated affair. In this case I want the license reinstated, so that the General Film Company can purchase the business of the Greater New York Rental Company." I wished the gentleman many happy returns of the day. He said he would send the papers to my office, and I left the gentleman. Q. Was anything said by Mr. Kennedy at that meeting as to the method of payment for your bussiness? That is, whether it was to be in part preferred stock, and part deferred payments, and in part cash. What, if anything, was said about that? A. Why, he said, "You know, Fox, the details of this, I took up with you the last time." We had discussed when he had offered me his original price at 200 Fifth Avenue, he there told me the amount of cash, the amount of deferred payments, and the amount of stock. I think it was preferred stock, or common stock. I don't