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 4
Leaf #:
000221
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:
September 21, 2023
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.

Frederick A. Anthony, Direct Examination. 2071 Q. Did you borrow about up to the limit of your borrowing capacity? A. Yes, sir; we borrowed up to something like |300,000. And in 1003, along about June, one of the banks refused to discount our paper. Mr. Grosyenor: This was when? The Witness : In 1903. And we were then obliged to notify the banks that we would have to haye an extension, and the extension was granted, and it went along for a time, but at the end of six months we were obliged to take up five thousand dollars monthly on the old debt, and after doing so for three months we found that it was taxing us too heayily, and taking too much of our working capital, and that we were short in money, and I notified the banks that we could not continue under that arrangement. They then employed a firm of accountants to go oyer our books, and the accountants adyised that we be giyen financial assistance. Some of the banks, however, were not willing to do this, and they withdrew. The others that were willing to extend assistance bought the notes which these banks held at a discount, and the control of the company, the stock control, was deposited with the committee of the bankers who employed the accountants to watch our business, and all checks and notes that we issued had to be countersigned by these accountants. They insisted that we reduce our expenses to the lowest possible point, and one of them told me he would like for us to stop — ■ Mr. Grosyenor: I object to all this history on the further ground of its immateriality. It may be sad, but I do not see how it is relevant to any of the issues in this case, and relating to a period of time which is long anterior to the formation of the combination alleged to be unlawful. Mr. Caldwell: Its materiality ought to be very apparent to counsel for the petitioner when he considers that he is charging that the owners of the Latham patent were guilty of laches in not enforcing their rights under it during all of those years. Now you may proceed. The Witness : One of the bankers told me that he would like for us to stop all the litigations, that they didn't care to