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 #:
000378
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.

996 William Devery, Cross Examination. 1 A. I don't know that he reported any, to my knowledge. By Mr. Kingsley: Q. Well, what was the total amount of the liabilities at that time? A. The total amount of the actual liabilities were about $3,000. Q. When you stated on your direct examination that you had made an agreement with Mr. Moore of Washington to take over that office, that was the agreement to which you have just referred in your testimony? A. No, it was 2 not. Q. What was that agreement? A. The agreement on that was when our license was cancelled, Mr. Moore was in New York, on the 15th day of April, on which all the assets and the business was to be turned over. Mr. Steiner was to retire. Mr. Moore came. We had the cancellation. That was the best we could offer Mr. Moore. Mr. Moore went down and seen Mr. Kennedy in regard to it. He seen Mr. Kennedy and came back the following day, Saturday, the 16th day of April, and told me that if he could take over the business of the Imperial Film Exchange at Wash 3 ington, that Mr. Kennedy would give him a license. I told him that I would have to consult with the lawyers, and at that time we did not have any lawyers, first. He told me that every dollar he had in the world was invested in the place, and that if he did not get a license and had to go out of business, he was ruined. Therefore, I agreed to turn the office then and there over to Tom Moore for $5,000, the business. Q. That was the agreement to which you referred on your direct examination. Did you read the report of the Special Master which was read into the record at the first 4 hearing in this case in which you were sworn? A. I did not. Mr. Grosvenor: Are you referring to the report of the referee in bankruptcy? Mr. Kingsley : Yes. Reported at page 841 of the printed minutes. By Mr. Kingsley: Q. When you swore a few moments ago that the lia