Start Over

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 #:
000523
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.

Percival L. Waters, Direct Examination. 2969 Fox and Mr. Kennedy, say to Fox, either in words or in substance: "Fox, I think you are foolish. I thonght yon had some sense before I called the big chief in, but I see il all went to pieces again"? A. No. Q. Did you say to him on that occasion after his conversation with Mr. Kennedy, either in terms or in substance: "Why, Fox, look here, don't you know that if I could get any assurance that the Motion Picture Patents Company would not cancel my license, the license of the Kinetograph Company, that I had, why I would pay them all the money they gave me and twice as much as that. That would be a cinch the way this business is now. If I was in the field renting films, do you suppose I would have to be here and be an employe of these people? But I seen it coming. I knew the time was going to come when we had to get out and I got out, that is all. Now, use a little sense?" A. No. Furthermore, the Kinetograph Company had no license. Q. The Kinetograph Company had no license, you sav? A. No. Q. Did you say to Mr. Fox on that occasion, either in words or in substance: "I am running this concern here now. I am the General Manager of the General Film Company, and when we meet in competition or in some other way, we are a great, big, gigantic wheel, and you are a little splinter. Every time we meet you, we have got to run over you and crush you, and cret you out of the way, because you are a stumbling block. We hear about this every day of our life here. A customer walks into our office and complains we are charging too much money for the service we are giving him. We say 'that is the best we can do.? Now, the next morning, we find out he is a customer of yours. If he was not a customer of yours, he would not be a customer of anyone else. We can charge him as we like and do as we like. Now, you understand we must get you out of the way. You are the last one. We must have thought a lot of you to leave you the last fellow. Now be sane. Eighty-nine or ninety thousand; I think I can fix it for you and get you a hundred"? A. No. Q. Did you say to Fox on that occasion : "We are a great, big, gigantic wheel and you are a little splinter"? A. No. Q. Did you then mix your metaphors and tell him he was a stumbling block? A. No.