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 #:
000524
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.

2970 Percival L. Waters, Direct Examination Q. Did you promise him to endeavor to arrange so he would get a hundred thousand dollars for his exchange? A. Mr. Fox said that he didn't understand why Mr. Kennedy would let a few thousand dollars stand in the way of the deal. He says, "I would accept a hundred thousand dollars for the exchange." I told him as well as I knew Mr. Kennedy I took it for granted lie would not trade, but if he wanted me to mention a hundred thousand dollars to Mr. Kennedy I would. Q. Did he say to you on that occasion either in terms or in substance: "Just see that they don't cancel my license and job me if you are my friend and everything will be all right"? A. No. Q. Was anything said at that time about his being jobbed, or the possibility of his being jobbed? A. Not to me. Q. Was anything said in your presence by anybody as to the possibility of his being jobbed? A. No, sir. Q. Do you recall having an interview with one Louis Rosenblnh in September, 1911? A. Yes, sir. Q. Where did the interview take place? A. Two hundred Fifth Avenue. Q. Did he seek the interview, or you seek it? A. I telephoned Mr. Rosenblnh relative to the adjustment of the account heretofore referred to, and invited him to stop in the office if he should happen to be in the neighborhood. Q. Did you say to Rosenblnh on that occasion, either in terms or in substance, that you had had a conversation with Mr. Fox in which you had explained to him it was about time he made arrangements to dispose of his business? That the (heater New York Film Rental Company was the only one left with the exception of a small concern out West with which yon expected negotiations would be closed shortly. That it was the proper time now, if he expected to do anything at all, to enter into negotiations, because you did not think the Greater New York Film Rental Company would be able to hold out against the General Film Comjiany, a |2,0()0,000 corporation? A. No. Q. Did you have any such conversation with Rosenblnh? A. No. Q. Did you make any such statements as those I have read and which are quoted from his testimony appearing at p;ig<> 368, Vol. I? A. No.