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 000471 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 3
Leaf #:
000471
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.

Albert E. Smith, Direct Examination. 1697 this manner : Mr. William T. Rock, the president of our company, called me on the 'phone from our NeAV York office, in Nassau street, and said that Mr. Fox wanted to see me, and would I see him, and I said "Yes," that I would be there all day at the studio, and sometime afterwards Mr. Fox arrived; and he came into our office and told me all of the things that he had done for the furtherance of business in New York, which took a long time, and the details of which I cannot remember, but stated that he had been offered ninety thousand dollars for his exchange, and that he was satisfied to take the ninety thousand dollars, but that he had a partner — I think it was Tim Sullivan — or some politician, who was his partner in the business, who was hard up and needed the money, and therefore, he wanted to get a hundred thousand dollars, to help his partner out, and asked me if I would do what I could to help him get a hundred thousand dollars for his exchange, which I stated I would do. Q. Was this the substance of the conversation as you remember it? A. That is the substance of it. Q. You do not attempt, I assume, to tell in detail all that was said there, but you are giving us your best recollection of the general purport and substance of the conversation? A. And the general context of it. Q. Yes? A. I couldn't remember the details. Q. Did you as a matter of fact subsequently see anyone with reference to the negotiations between Mr. Fox and whoever was attempting to purchase his film exchange, or negotiating for its purchase? A. I endeavored to get Mr. Kennedy on the 'phone, and to the best of my recollection I was not successful. I think he was out of town, and I think I either telephoned or saw Mr. Berst personally, I am not sure which it was. Q. Go ahead, Mr. Smith? A. And I told him of Fox's interview with me, and stated that I would be in favor of his getting a hundred thousand dollars. Q. What corporation was negotiating for the purchase of the Greater New York Film Rental Company at that time? A. The General Film Company. Q. And were you a director at that time of the General Film Company? A. I was. Q. Who was in charge of the negotiations on the part of