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 #:
000522
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.

2968 Percival L. Waters, Direct Examination. Q. Who was the "big chief' referred to? A. T. D. Sullivan who, I think, was represented to be interested in the exchange, and Mr. Fox referred to him as being the "big chief" throughout the conversation. Q. So that the characterization "big chief" which was used at that conversation was used by Mr. Fox and not by you? A. Yes, by Mr. Fox. Q. Before you called up Mr. Kennedy did Mr. Fox say anything to you at all about the price of his exchange? A. Yes, sir. Q. What did he say? A. He said his exchange was a very valuable one and that he considered it worth a lot of money. He wanted to know if I thought it would be possible for him to make a price on the exchange, and I told him I had no advice to give, and knew nothing about it. He says, "Well, I would like to tell you in confidence what the price is, but it is distinctly understood you are not to mention this to Mr. Kennedy," and I said, "All right," He said he held the exchange at at least one hundred and fifty thousand dollars. Q. Did you know at that time whether Mr. Fox and Mr. Kennedy wrere acquainted? A. Yes. Q. They were already acquainted? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you enumerate the various offices Mr. Kenned}' held in the different companies when talking to Mr. Fox on that occasion? A. No. Q. Did you find it necessary to go into a lengthy statement to identify Mr. Kennedy? A. No. Q. When Fox met Kennedy were you present? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you find it necessary to introduce them to each other? A. No. Q. When you went with Mr. Fox to Mr. Kennedy's office after the conversation you have just described, did you on that occasion say to Mr. Kennedy, either in words or in substance: "I had quite a talk with Mr. Fox, and I think he understands his position pretty well"? A. No. Q. Did you see Fox again after the conversation between him and Mr. Kennedy and at which you were not present? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you see him immediately after their conversation? A. Yes. Q. Did you, shortly after the conversation between Mr.