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 000385 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 #:
000385
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 Devery, Redirect Examination. 1003 ton, and one in Troy, and one in New York, and were buying a print for each place. Pathe bad already sent the film to New York and Troy, and we got a letter that morning from Mr. Moore, in Washington, stating that be did not receive the film, and that they were putting it up at the rate of fifty dollars a day — what they were getting for the film, and Mr. Steiner then called up Pathe Freres, and asked them if they bad sent the film to Washington yet, and they informed him, "No" — Q. Was tbis on the 15th of April? A. Yes, sir. Q. In the morning? A. Yes, sir, and Mr. Steiner asked them when they intended to ship it, and they told him they did not intend to ship it, and be wanted to know the reason why, and they told him bis license was cancelled. Q. Was this in the morning before you received the notice of cancellation, dated April 15th? A. From the Patents Company. Q. Is that right? A. Yes, sir; that was before we received the notice. Q. Then what happened? A. We immediately called up our attorneys, MacDonald & Bostwick, who were the attorneys for the Patents Company. Q. Is that Dwigbt MacDonald that was the general manager of the Patents Company at that time? A. Dwigbt MacDonald, yes, sir. Q. Was be the general manager of the Patents Company? A. No, sir ; not at that time, but previous to that time. Q. He had been? A. Yes, sir. Mr. Kingsley: How long previous to tbat time? The Witness : Up to the first of January. By Mr. Grosvenor: Q. Well, please continue, Mr. Devery? A. Mr. MacDonald answered then, and Mr. Steiner told him he understood our license was cancelled, and to use a term they were using then, Mr. MacDonald told Steiner to "beat them to it," and be dictated a letter over the pbone to Mr. Steiner to send to the Patents Company, and to get ahead of the Patents Company's cancellation. Now, he informed us at tbat time if we got ours in ahead we would have two weeks, be