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 #:
000516
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 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.

2902 Tercival L. Waters, Direct Examination. Q. Were you satisfied with the amount paid you? A. Perfectly. Q. Was it a fair price for your stock and films that you sold? A. Yes. Q. Did the contract provide for payments of part cash and part deferred cash payments, and part stock? A. Part deferred payments and part stock. Q. Were the payments made to you as they came due? A. Yes, sir. Q. Was the stock delivered to you according to contract? A. Yes. Q. Have you had any difficulty Avith the General Film Company since the time of the sale with respect to the payments, or with respect to the delivery of the stock? A. No. Q. Have the dividends upon the stock been paid from time to time as they were declared? A. Yes, sir. Q. After the sale of your stock and your supply of motion pictures to the General Film Company did you remain with the business for some time? A. I did. Q. Did you subsequently become manager of the General Film Company? A. The General Manager. Q. At what time Avas it that you became the General Manager of the General Film Company? A. I think in June, 1910. Q. After you became manager of the General Film Company in June, 1910, did you have supervision and charge of its business in Greater New York and in the territory adjoining New York? A. Yes, sir. Q. Were you conversant with the competition then existing between the General Film Company and the Greater New York Film Rental Company? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you or did any of your subordinates with your consent instruct your representatives in the field to make any effort to get business awTay from the Greater New York Film Rental Company? A. No. Q. What were your directions and instructions to your subordinates with reference to the existing business which the Greater New York Film Rental Company then had? A. To keep away from it. Q. Did you at any time direct or consent to or permit any discrimination against customers of the Greater New York Film Rental Company? A. No.