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 #:
000506
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.

2952 Theodore AAr. Williams, Direct Examination. That this time it was positive, and authentic, that after a certain period, which was within two weeks, the Greater New York Film Company would no longer receive any films, and that they had better make their arrangements immediately; in fact, very nice inducements were offered them to accept at once, and not to wait until such time as the films would no longer be supplied by the licensed manufacturers. In fact, I heard it from the Bronx, Brooklyn, Jersey, and all over. Every one of my customers pretty much was visited, and they all came and asked what truth there was to that statement. And a great many of them turned, and did net wait long enough to see what the result would be. In fact, one of the companies in Newark, Meyer & Singer, left the General Film Company a few weeks ago and made arrangements with us. When they were about to leave the General Film Company, they were told that they would not fare well by making that change. That certain early runs would be placed with the exhibitors who were competing with them, and that they would stand no chance at all. These are the very first ones who were approached." Now. did you, about that time, which was within two weeks of February 27th, 1913, see and solicit the business of any of the customers of the Greater New York Film Rental Company? A. Well, as to the exact time, within two weeks, I cannot say, but during that period of 1913, the early part, say February, yes, I did. Q. Are you the only Williams connected with the General Film Company at that time as a solicitor? A. Yes, sir. Q. So, if a card of the General Film Company, with the name of Williams on it as a representative, was found in the hands of any exhibitor at that time, you are the Williams referred to, are you? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, did you state to any of the customers of the Greater New York Film Rental Company that they were in trouble again, or words to that effect? A. No. Q. Or that the information was positive, authentic, that after a certain time, the Greater New York Film Rental Company would no longer receive any films? A. No. Q. Or words to that effect? A. No, sir. Q. Or that the customers had better make their arrangements immediately? A. Not following that up. Q. What do you mean by "not following (hat up"? Do