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 (1914)

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:
1914
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 5
Leaf #:
000505
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.

Theodore W. Williams, Direct Examination. 2951 Thereupon, THEODORE W. WILLIAMS, a witness produced on behalf of the defendants, of lawful age, being first duly sworn by the Examiner, deposed : Direct examination by Mr. Caldwell: Q. Where do you live, Mr. Williams? A. Philadelphia at present. Q. In what business are you engaged? A. I am acting as Manager for the General Film Company's Feature Department. Q. How long have you been with the General Film Company? A. About two years now. Q. In February, 1913, what was your position with the General Film Company? A. Solicitor. Q. Connected with what office? A. No one in particular. I traveled during that time from the State of Jersey, through to Massachusetts, Connecticut. Used to make trips all over. Q. Then your duties required you to work in that particular territory? It was not general throughout the country, and you were not directly connected with the general office? A. I worked out of the general office, but where I was used to do business with the exchange, when I was in that territory. Whatever exchange it was. Q. Mr. Williams, I will read you from the redirect examination of Louis Rosenbluh, a witness called by the petitioner in this case, pages 731 and 732 : "Q. You answered on cross examination, I think, by Mr. Caldwell, that recently you lost some more customers, but as rumors died away, you hoped to get some of them back. What did you mean by that? What was the cause of this recent loss of a few customers? A. I have been approached two weeks ago by the exhibitors doing business with us, with cards in their hands of the General Film Company. One of the cards had the name of Worthington on as a representative. Another had Williams on as representative. These men were very active and I have heard from them in various parts of the city. "Q. Was this after the recent cancellation of your license? A. Prior to that cancellation. In fact, they had the information going around thai we were in trouble again.