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 000321 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 #:
000321
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 H. Swanson, Direct Examination. 290 lation, and that at both times he got broke fighting in court, and he advised everyone present, owing to the fact that it created litigation that was expensive, to join with his ideas and thoughts and coincide and connect up with the Motion Picture Patents Company, which would undoubtedly prove a boon and benefit to the business, and to the individuals in particular who were granted licenses. Q. Do you recall anything else that was stated by Mr. MacDonald or Mr. Lubin; was anything stated about Independents or competition on the outside? Mr. Caldwell: Objected to because irrelevant, incompetent and immaterial. A. In a general way Mr. MacDonald went over the matter of the independents' position, and the former licensees, the Edison licensees, and pointed out that the formation of the Patents Company would unquestionably have the effect of eliminating that competition and bring about harmony, and inasmuch as the Biograph Company and George Kleine, had been taken into the Motion Picture Patents Company that that of course removed independent competition and that therefore it looked like the respective licensees under the Motion Picture Patents Company would have the entire field to themselves, as had been stated before, that it was a 95 per cent, business proposition and a five per cent, legal. There was nothing further said by Mr. Lubin that I can recall, except in his rambling way referring to his litigation expenses and to how glad he now was that the thing was now settled and that everything was going to be made harmonious for the benefit of all. Q. Did you leave the room shortlv after this for a while? A. I did. Q. And who did you find outside, if anyone, outside the room in the hallway? A. I found Mr. Selig and Mr. Spoor, Mr. Lubin and Mr. Dyer and Mr. George Kleine, and Mr. Long of the Kalem Company, I believe; I am not certain about Mr. Long. Q. State whether or not any of the manufacturers came out of the meeting of the exchanges and said anything to the other manufacturers as to the action of the rental exchanges? A. Yes, Mi-. Rock came out and talked to them. 1