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)

Page scan 000318 from 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 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 #:
000318
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 12, 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.

290 William H. Swanson, Direct Examination. 1 ning four at that time ; I had one closed up by orders of Mr. Dyer prior to that time. Mr. Caldwell: I object to the latter part of the answer, and move to strike it out on the ground that it is not responsive. Q. About how many customers, stating it approximately, did you have in the beginning of the year 1909, and by "customers/' I mean owners of theatres or exhibitors of moving pictures? A. I would judge between six hundred and seven hundred. Q. Were you familiar with the general business conditions at that time, in the moving picture art, that is, the names of your competitors, and the manner in which the business was done? A. Yes, sir. Q. Were there many men doing a rental exchange business at that time that had four or five branches? A. Yes, sir. Q. Were you one of the larger rental exchanges? A. I think at that time I was about the largest renter in the business. Q. There was an association of rental exchanges in the business in the year 190S, was there not? A. There was an association termed "Film Service Association'7 comprising the film exchanges and film manufacturers and machine manufacturers. Q. Were the film manufacturers that were members also engaged in the business of rental exchanges? A. Several of them were and several were not. Q. Which of the manufacturers were engaged not only in the manufacture but also in running rental exchanges? State to the best of your recollection. A. I don't know as to 4 whether the same corporations that manufactured film were the identical corporations running exchanges, but the individuals, comprising the corporations manufacturing film were in the rental exchange1 business. They consisted of the Vitagraph interests, George Spoor, Chicago; Selig, Chicago; Lubin, Philadelphia, and George Kleine, Chicago. Q. State whether there1 was in the year 1908 keen competition prevailing between what were known as the two factions of the motion picture business? A. There was. Q. What were those two factions? A. The Edison licensees, on the one hand, and the Independents represented