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 6
Leaf #:
00045
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, Cross Examination. 3077 Film Company, and asked him if he wished to take np the matter with Mr. Fox. Q. And what did Mr. Kennedy say? A. He said if Mr. Fox wanted to talk business he would be very glad to meet him. Q. What else happened that afternoon? A. Mr. Kennedy came to the office, No. 200 Fifth Avenue, and met Mr. Fox. Q. And the matter they discussed was the sale of the business? A. The sale of the Greater New York Fi3 a Rental Company. ~ Q. You say that you did not, on that day, call Mr. Kennedy the "big chief," as testified to by Mr. Fox? A. Positively no. Q. As a matter of fact, whether Mr. Kennedy was so termed on that day or not, he was in fact the big chief? Mr. Kingsley: Objected to, as calling for a conclusion of the witness, and as being a grossly improper question. The Witness: Not to my knowledge. 3 By Mr. Grosvenor: Q. Was he not the man who had in charge the \)\\v chasing of the various rental exchanges? A. Yes. Q. Who else for the General Film Company took part in the matter of purchasing exchanges? A. I really don't know. I never participated in the purchasing of an exchange. Q. Did you or not from time to time introduce rental exchange men to Mr. Kennedy, who came there on the subject of selling their business? A. I don't think so. Q. A number of the witnesses produced by tin1 defendants here from various parts of the country have testified that they did meet you, and that you did go in with them to meet Mr. Kennedy, on the subject of purchasing their several exchanges. Your recollection is to the contrary? A. No, I think they came here for that specific purpose, and that possibly preliminary arrangements had been made with them. I probably acted as just simply introducing them to Mr. Kennedy, as a personal matter.