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 #:
000518
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.

2961 Percival L. Waters, Direct Examination. from me in some time, and I asked him if lie would not stop in the office some time and pay me a visit. Q. Was this conversation in reference to this unadjusted account entirely, at that time? A. Entirely. Q. Did he subsequently call at your office, in or about September, 1911? A. Yes. Q. And was this call that he made in connection with this prior conversation respecting the unadjusted account? A. In a measure. Q. At the time he called upon you at your office, in September, 1911, did you say to him on that occasion, either in terms or in substance : "Fox, I have sent for you, and my object in sending for you is to tell you that in my opinion this would be the very best time to sell your plant to the General Film Company, as you are no doubt aware that we have all of the business now''? A. No. Q. Did you make any such remark to him? A. No Q. Had you sent for him for the purpose of telling him that? A. No. Q. Did you say to him on that occasion, either in words or in substance: "Fox, you know that I have always been friendly to you, and I am willing to give you my best advice, and then you can do as you think best. You know, you have stayed in business a good long time. Everybody else is out, and you are still in, and if I were you, at this time I would sell out and be done with it"? A. No. Q. Did you give him any advice to the effect that he should sell his business? A. No. Q. Did you tell him that he had been in business for a good long time and that everybody else was out? A. No. Q. Did you tell him that if you were in his position at that time that you would sell out and be done with it? A. No. Q. Did you say to him on that occasion, either in words or in substance: "Fox, now, if you don't offer your plant today, you might not get another chance. Now, if I were you — that is all I can say to you. I am not going to talk any plainer. You can understand what I mean. Now, don't press me, and don't walk out and later say that I did not try to treat you fair. I cannot talk any plainer than I am to you now. I would advise you to sell, and I