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 00073 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 #:
00073
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.

William Fox, Direct Examination. 691 Mr. Kingsley: The question is, did you do it? * The Witness (continuing) : By Mr. Rogers. Mr. Kingsley: Did you execute it? The Witness: No. On his advice, I did not. Mr. Grosvenor: Then you received a subsequent notice of cancellation? o The Witness : I did, sir. By Mr. Grosvenor : Q. Prior to this subsequent notice of cancellation, had you stated, or had any one at your direction stated to Mr. Kennedy that your company would not sell? Mr. Kingsley : I object to that if he intends to state what somebody else stated. If he states what he himself stated, I do not object. 3 The Witness : I directed Mr. G. A. Rogers to ring up Mr. Kennedy, and in my presence he did ring up Mr. Kennedy and told him that he had advised the Greater New York Film Rental Company not to sell out under the terms of the contract as they submitted it. That was on December 6th. By Mr. Grosvenor : Q. When did you receive that second notice of cancellation? A. Just as soon after they got that telephone conversation, as possible. Mr. Kingsley : I object to that and move to strike it out as comment. The Witness : December 7th. That is right, it is not comment. That is right. By Mr. Grosvenor : Q. December 7th. And is this the notice of cancellation