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 000472 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 #:
000472
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.

1090 William Devery, Recross Examination. between this office and the Imperial Film Exchange, growing out of the cancellation of its licenses by the Motion Picture Patents Company, and in response to your request as to whether or not we will continue as your counsel, we, after careful consideration, have concluded that it will not be possible for us to advise or act for you in any matters which involve your relations with the Patents Company or any of its licensees. Inasmuch as we originally incorporated the Imperial Film Exchange for you and have always been its counsel and inasmuch as during this time, we have had the pleasantest relations with your Mr. Steiner and your Mr. Devery, we regret very much the necessity for coming to this conclusion. However, we know that our position will be thoroughly understood by you when you realize how closely we have been connected with the Motion Picture Patents Company from its inception, as well as the further fact that we are the attorneys for several of its licensees. Our office and its records are entirely at your disposal for the proper concluding of any matters which you have placed in our hands heretofore. Yours very truly, Macdonald & Bostwick. DM/H Recross examination, by Mr. Kingsley: Q. So, MacDonald & Bostwick had been your attorneys for sometime prior to the date of this letter? A. They were the only attorneys we ever had. Q. And how long had they been your attorneys? A. From the time of the incorporation of the Imperial Film Exchange in 1908. Q. And that was prior to the time of the incorporation of the Motion Picture Patents Company, was it not? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, did you ever have any controversy with them at any time prior to the date of the severance of your relations, the relations between the Imperial Film Exchange, and them, as counsel? A. In what respect? Q. In any respect, any material respect? A. We did not.