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)

Page scan 000526 from 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 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 #:
000526
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 12, 2024
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.

2972 Perctval L. Waters, Direct Examination the visit of that gentleman to your office in September, 1911? A. No. Q. Did it make the slightest difference to you whether or not the Greater New York Film Rental Company sold its exchange to the General Film Company? A. No. Q. Had any one asked or instructed you to seek an interview with Fox or Rosenbluh with reference to the sale of the Greater New York Film Rental Company to the General Film Company? A. No. Q. Do you remember another and subsequent interview with Mr. Rosenbluh, when he called upon you just after the cancellation of the license of the Greater New York Film Rental Company had been served, the date of such service being on or about November 14th, 1911? A. Yes. Q. What did he say to you? A. He said, "I suppose you have heard the news," and I asked him what news, and lie said, "The cancellation of the Greater New York Film Rental Company's license," and I said, "No, I had not heard of it," and he said he had received notice that morning, and he wanted to know if I would advise him what to do, and I asked him if he had told Mr. Fox about it, and he said Mr. Fox knew something about it, that he had telephoned him. I said, "I can't advise you in the matter, it st ems to me, Mr. Fox is the man owning the exchange, to handle it," and he stated that he was to see Fox later in the day, and wanted to know if he could take a message of advice as to what to do, and I told him it was a matter I had absolutely nothing to do with, and therefore I could not advise him in any way. Q. Did you say to him on that occasion, either in words or in subsance: "Well, I told you that some time ago, when you asked me what was the best thing to do. I advised you and I advised you right. You did not seem to take my advice, and I don't know what else I can do for you now. However, Mr. Fox is a better man to handle the situation. You tell Fox to come over and have a talk with me, and I think we can somehow arrange this matter"? A. No. Q. Did you tell him, as a matter of fact, he should have Fox come over and you would advise him? A. No. Q. Did you have any authority to deal with Fox relative to the matter? A. None whatever. Q. Was it a matter in which you were interested? A. None whatever.