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 #:
00037
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.

Fred C. Aiken, Cross Examination. 2487 meeting with them. I can state possibly that some of these people were there. Q. The article states, "The meeting was called to order by Mr. W. H. Swanson of Chicago, who was unanimously elected President pro tern, and Mr. D. McDonald of New York, Secretary pro tern." Is that correct? A. That is correct. Q. And the "D. MacDonald" referred to D wight MacDonald? A. Yes, sir, who, I think, at that time was connected with Miles Brothers. Q. And became Secretary of the Film Service Association? A. Yes, sir. Q. And thereafter became the manager of the Motion Picture Patents Company? A. Yes, sir. Q. The article states : "After the meeting had discussed various ideas relating to the business in general, the President was authorized to appoint a committee to consult with the manufacturers (who were meeting separately) and report again to the meeting of renters." Is that a true statement? A. Yes, sir, I believe that is. Q. The article also states : "The following were adopted as planks in a platform for the Association and which all present signed; " '1. The renting interests enrolled as members to purchase film only from the association of manufacturers and importers. " '2. No duplicating of film. " '3. The elimination of subrenting. (A. subrenter was defined as one who, for the purpose of profit, secures film from a renter and rerents it.) " '4. No film to be sold second-hand. " '5. Retiring of film purchased after it has been rented for a period to be decided ; the returning of this used film to the manufacturers. " Is that a true statement of what was done? A. I think most of those points were brought up. Q. And were those matters adopted, or those sentences I have read, adopted as planks in a platform for the Association, and which all of those present signed? A. Most of those points were important points which we wanted adopted, and which were eventually adopted. Most of them. Q. Was there any one of those paragraphs which was not made a plank in the platform and signed by all of them? A. I am not just sure of whether No. 5, the retiring of films