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 000319 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 #:
000319
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.

William II. Swanson, Direct Examination. 2(.)T by George Kleine and his importations and the American Mutoscope and Biograph Company, on the other hand. Q. Were yon present at a meeting of the rental exchanges held in New York City in January, 1909? A. Yes, sir. Q. And where was that meeting held? A. Imperial Hotel, on Broadway. Q. How many representatives of the rental exchanges, giving it to the best of your recollection, were present at that meeting? A. About sixty. Q. Was the date of this meeting before the entering into of what is known as licensed rental exchange agreements with the Motion Picture Patents Company? A. Yes, sir. Q. When you went to the meeting, what papers, if any, did yon find had been distributed among the seats? A. Printed forms of the Motion Picture Patents Company's contracts with the exchanges. Q. Had those forms of license agreements been distributed among the rental exchanges prior to that date? A. No, sir, it was an absolute surprise to them. Q. How many of those agreements were found there when the exchanges assembled? A. There was one on each chair in the room, and there was a package of several hundred on a desk, or on a table, rather. Q. This was a meeting of the Film Service Association? A. Yes, sir; the annual meeting. Q. Who was the Secretary of that association? A. Dwight MacDonald. Q. This gentleman who has just entered his appearance here? A. The same one, yes. ( >. Did you elect officers? A. Yes, sir. Q. For the ensuing year? A. Yes, sir. Q. Who was elected President? A. I was. Q. State whether or not anything was said by Mr. MacDonald as to these licensed exchange agreements which were found in the seats? Mr. Caldwell: Objected to as irrelevant, incompetent and immaterial. Q. Before you answer that question, Mr. Swanson, let me ask you another? Did Mr. MacDonald resign on that day? A. ne did.