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 000384 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 #:
000384
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.

1002 William Devery, Redirect Examination. Patents Company was formed, that projecting machine was acquired before the Patents Company was organized? A. It certainly was. Q. And at the time that it was acquired was there anything said about paying two dollars per week royalty on it? Mr. Kingsley : Objected to, as the question is leading. The Witness: No. By Mr. Grosvenor : Q. Now, it appears in this case that your notice of cancellation, and by "your notice'' I mean the cancellation notice received by the Imperial Film Exchange, is dated April 15? A. Yes, sir. Q. Is that right? A. Yes, sir. Q. Defendants' counsel have introduced a copy of a letter appearing to be signed by "William Steiner, President of the Imperial Film Exchange," of the same date— is that right? A. Yes, sir, that is right. Q. Now, as I understand your testimony, William Steiner had resigned from the presidency of your company a week before that? A. Yes. Q. Namely, on April 8th, effective April 15th? A. Yes, sir, to take effect on April 15th. Q. Do you know whether or not any letter of the character or general tenor of that letter introduced by defendants was sent about the time indicated, namely, April 15th, to the Patents Company? A. I do. Q. Please state the circumstances under which such a letter was sent to the Patents Company? Mr. Kingsley: Objected to, on the ground that the letter speaks for itself. By Mr. Grosvenor: Q. Go ahead? A. It was about the time that the Roosevelt African Films, that was the title, it was two reels by Pathe Freres, of which we were buying three prints at four hundred dollars a print, that is, twenty cents a foot that they were charging. Now, we had to have one in Washing