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 #:
000320
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:
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.

1 298 William IT. Swanson, Direct Examination. Q. Did he state what position he was prepared to accept? Mr. Caldwell: Objected to upon the ground that it is irrelevant, immaterial and incompetent. A. He did. Q. And what was that? A. He stated that he was resigning with regrets from the association ; that he was going to or had accepted the position of General Manager of the Motion Picture Patents Company, and that he would be glad to discuss the contents of the printed form that had been presented to the meeting. Q. Was that printed form read to the meeting? A. I read it to the meeting. Q. Now, going back to my question preceding — please state what, if anything, Mr. MacDonald said in regard to those license agreements after you had read one? Mr. Caldwell : Objected to because irrelevant, immaterial and incompetent. A. He stated that the Motion Picture Patents Company had been formed and had issued these agreements for the purpose of uplifting the business, controlling the same, and removing false competitors who were not entitled to make film, and that they would be issued only to worthy exchanges ; that they were offered in the open meeting merely for perusal, and that the question of the signing of the same and the acceptance of the same would be taken up at a later time by the officers of the Motion Picture Patents Company. Q. Were any of the manufacturers present during any of this time? A. Mr. Lubin and Mr. William Rock. Q. Did Mr. Lubin say anything? A. He did. Q. What did he say? Mr. Caldwell: Objected to as irrelevant, incompetent and immaterial. A. In an effort to create enthusiasm in favor of the agreement, he called for the attention of the Chair, and stated that lie had been legally fighting the patent interests for years, and thai he had lost $35,000, his first accumulation in business efforts, and that he had lost $75,000, his second accumu