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 #:
000519
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.

Pbrcival L. Waters, Direct Examination^ 2905 don't mind telling you if you don't soil now, you shall not have another chance to sell"? A. No. Q. Had you any reason to tell him he should sell his plant? A. No. Q. Had you any reason or authority to tell him that if lie did not sell his plant, he would not have another chance? A. No. Q. Did Fox say to you on that occasion, either in terms or in substance: "Now, Waters, let us see just what you mean by that. Am I to infer that if I do not sell my business to the General Film Company, that you are going to cancel my license, and that I am going to be put out of business as you have done to a great many others?" A. No. Q. And did you then reply: ''All I cp.u tell you is that you ought to sell"? A. No. Q. On the occasion of this alleged conversation between Fox and you, regarding which he has testified in this case, did he say to you, either in terms or in substance : "Now, look here, Waters, if you pretend you have got all of this friendship for me, I think I do understand what you are driving at, and I think I am beginning to see it as you are putting it. Now, I don't want to be driven out of my business, and I don't want to lose my business, but if I have got to sell, and you say I have got no alternative at all, I suppose I have got to sell. That is all"? A. No. Q. Did he make any such statement to you at all? A. No. Q. Did he say to you that if he had got to sell, he would sell? A. No. Q. And did you then say to him, either in terms or in substance: "Now, son, you are getting some sense"? A. No. Q. Did you ever address him as "son"? A. No. Q. Either at that time or at any other time? A. No. Q. On the occasion that Fox called upon you at your office, in September, 1911, did he say to you in the course of the conversation, either in terms or in substance: "I have been informed by other people whose plants you have purchased, about what you are paying, and in my opinion they are ridiculously low figures for a plant — for the money that some of them are earning. Now, I would not want to let go at all, even under this pressure, without T got at least J150,000?" A. He made some reference to $150,000, but as to the rest of it, no.