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 #:
000532
Language:
English
Collection:
Early Cinema and Government & Law
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.

338-1 Alfred Weiss, Redirect Examination. business done, Alfred Weiss Branch of the General Film Company, week ended July 30th, 1910, signed Alfred Weiss, Manager. Was that statement made out by you? A. Yes, sir. Q. Is it correct? A. Yes, sir. Mr. Kingsley : I ask to have that marked for identification. The paper identified by the witness is marked uDefeudaiits' Exhibit for Identification No. 206." Mr. Kingsley : That is all. Redirect examination by Mr. Gkosvenor: Q. Mr. Weiss, you stated on cross examination in response to the question regarding receiving instructions from Mr. Waters not to interfere with the customers of the Greater New York, that you did receive such instructions. When was it that you received such instructions from Mr. Waters? A. We received from Mr. Waters — from the General Film Company — a circular letter stating that under no consideration we should take any Greater New York customer on in our office or solicit any Greater New York customer. Q. When was this? A. That was — let me think for a moment. The time an injunction was served. The time the Greater New York had an injunction out against the General Film Company. Q. Had you received any such instructions, that is, that you were not to interfere with the customers of the Greater New York Film Company prior to the issuing of the injunction to which you have referred? A. No, sir. Q. Then in giving the answer that you did on cross examination, you had reference solely to these instructions received by you from Mr. Waters after the issuing of that injunction? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you receive any subsequent instructions from Mr. Waters after the injunction was dissolved? A. Yes, sir. Q. What was the character of those instructions? A. To solicit Greater New York business, and in case they come to our office, to take them on again. Q. You may state wiiether or not, after the receipt of this second letter of instructions from Mr. Waters, your branch of the General Film Company returned to, and resumed the