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 (1913)

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:
1913
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 1
Leaf #:
000316
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:
May 23, 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.

294 William II. Swanson, Direct Examination. 1 By Mr. Grosvenor: Q. Mr. Swanson, from what manufacturers were you obtaining your supplies in the motion picture film business during those years? A. From the Edison Manufacturing Company; Lubin Film Company; Selig Polyscope Company; Essanay Manufacturing Company; Kalem Company; Melies Company; George Kleine, Pathe Freres and perhaps some other importers that I do not recall — Williams, Brown & Earle. Q. Have you named the Vitagraph Company? A. No, 2 I didn't name them but I was getting film from them. Q. And the Biograph also? A. Yes, sir. Q. In those years was there competition in the supplying of those films? Mr. Caldwell: I object to the question as calling for a conclusion. A. Very keen. Q. And were the prices of those different manufacturers up to the end of 1907, different from time to time, or 3 were they always the same? A. 1907? Q. Yes, down to the end of 1907. A. Do you have reference to their own prices, or as compared to competitors'? Q. Did all of those eight or nine or ten manufacturers sell their films to your exchanges at the same price? A. Oh, no, there was great variation in prices. Q. Did any of the manufacturers during those years sell these motion picture films to you as patented articles? Mr. Caldwell: Objected to as irrelevant, incom 4 petent and immaterial. A. Not until 1909. Q. That is, not until 1909, were they sold as patented articles? Mr. Caldwell: I object to the question because irrelevant, incompetent and immaterial. A. They never were so sold until the formation of the Motion Picture Patents Company.