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 #:
000223
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. 2073 Q. Did you continue as a stockholder? A. Yes, sir. Q. After your resignation? A. Yes, sir. Q. And did you keep in touch with the financial affairs of the company after you ceased to be a director? A. I attended the annual meetings, and at the annual meeting after I resigned, in 1907, the company was in the same financial condition as it had been, or was when I left it. And in the Summer of that year the secretary of the company, Mr. Lamoute, came to my office and asked me if I could not raise the capital to take over the control of the company. I told him that I might, but that I did not care to make the proposition, that he could sound the people that controlled the company, and see if they were disposed to consider it. He did so, and subsequently advised me that they would not consider any turning over of control to me. Then, in 1907, the Fall of 1907, I think, in October, the Ansco Company was organized, and they took over the assets of the Anthony & Scoville Company. Q. Including the Latham loop patent? A. Including the stock of the E. & H. T. Anthony Company. The stock of the E. & H. T. Anthony Company really controlled the Latham patent, because the title was in the Anthony Company's name, but the whole thing went over at the time of consolidation as an asset. Q. Do you recall that at that annual stockholders' meeting in 1907, a financial statement was read to the stockholders, showing the financial condition of the company then? A. Yes, sir. Q. What did that statement show with respect to the resources of the company? A. It was in the same financial condition. Q. How much of a balance do you recall they had at that time in cash? A. They were owing the banks — Q. But how much cash balance did they have at that time in the treasury? A. Very little, but in L908, when I attended the first meeting of the Ansco Company, the successor of the Anthony & Scoville Company, a financial statement was submitted there, and the cash balance was less than a thousand dollars. Q. Did the committee of bankers permit your company to institute suits to enforce its rights under the Latham loop patent? A. No.