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 #:
000533
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.

Alfred Weiss, Recross Examination. 3385 tactics previously employed regarding the customers of the 1 Greater New York Film Rental Company? Mr. KlNGSLEY : I object to the question as containing a characterization of the examiner. A. The second instruction we received over the telephone. Mr. Waters called us up and told us over the telephone that we can go ahead now and take the Greater New York customers on. We did not receive any instructions in writing. Q. Then after this telephone communication with Mr. Waters, did your branch, or not, resume the methods which you have previously described for obtaining the customers of the Greater New York Film Rental Company? A. No. We went right out and took their business. Q. Whose business? A. The Greater New York's business. The Greater Xew York's customers. Q. Did you or not employ the methods that you described on your direct examination respecting giving a better service for the same price? A. That was only done in certain instances where the Greater New York were directly in com Q ... *» petition Avith our customers. Q. Did you resume those methods after this telephone communication with Mr. Waters? A. Yes, sir. Recross examination by Mr. Kingsley : Q. Did you have any solicitors out for your branch at all? A. We had solicitors out. They were paid by the Home Office. They were soliciting for all the branches. Q. Did you have any solicitors out under your charge? A. No. Q. Were there any solicitors who reported to you? A. Yes, sir. Q. Who were they? A. Mr. Harstn. Q. When did he work for you? A. He never worked for me. He worked for Mr. Waters. Q. When did he work under your direction or report to you? A. He never worked under my direction, but he reported once a week in case he had a customer for me. Q. If he did not have a customer he did not report to you? A. No.