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 #:
000386
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.

1004 William Devery, Recross Examination. 1 cause they could not cancel immediately — he said, "You will get in two weeks" — Mr. Kingsley : I object to that as hearsay. Mr. Grosvenor: Yes, eliminate as much of the conversation as you can, Mr. Devery. By Mr. Grosvenor: Q. Then you sent this notice? A. Mr. Steiner sent it. Q. Did you know about its being sent? A. He told me. 2 Q. At the time? A. Yes, he told me. Q. And that was sent to the Patents Company? A. Yes, sir. Q. And when did you receive, then, their notice of cancellation? A. We received it just as soon as the other one went out, and then Mr. MacDonald withdrew from the case, and refused to have anything to do with us after instructing us to send that. That is what we got. I have got a letter to show where his close relations with the Patents Company compelled them to withdraw — 3 Mr. Kingsley (interrupting) : Objected to, as incompetent. The Witness : He is a fine fellow to have — Mr. Kingsley (interrupting) : Produce the letter. If he has such a letter let him produce it. The Witness : I have got the letter. By Mr. Grosvenor: 4 Q. The attorney who advised you to send this letter to the Patents Company had been previously connected with the Patents Company, and severed his relationship with you? A. Immediately after he told Mr. Steiner to send that letter. Recross examination by Mr. Kingsley : Q. Well, Mr. Steiner told you then about this conversation with your lawyer? A. No, I heard that. Q. You couldn't hear what the lawyer said? A. No, I could not hear that.