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 #:
000322
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.

300 William II. Swanson, Direct Examination. 1 Q. What did lie say, if anything? Mr. Caldwell: Objected to as irrelevant, incompetent and immaterial. A. He approached this group standing close to the elevator in an excited manner and he said, "They eat the bait ill)" — he said, "eat." "Eat it up, hook, line and sinker, and we have got them by the tail." Q. Did you shortly after that return to the mooting? A. I did. 2 Q. State whether or not a committee was appointed by the rental exchanges to confer with the manufacturers, and who comprised that committee? A. On motion of some member, it was seconded and carried and the chair was requested to appoint a committee of five to wait on the representatives of the Motion Picture Patents Company in connection with certain disagreeable conditions of their license agreements. The chair proceeded to appoint five members to wait on them, and they did. Q. Who were the members? A. Of the committee? Q. Yes. A. Myself, as chairman, Mr. Laemmle, now of the Universal Film Company. Q. Of the Universal Film Company? A. Yes, sir; Mr. Clarke of Pittsburg, and Mr. Gillingham of Detroit, and one other; I do not recall who that fifth man was just now. Q. What were the provisions of the exchange license agreement which this committee was directed to take up with the manufacturers? A. A paragraph in relation to a two weeks1 cancellation clause, and the matter of royalty on projecting machines to be collected from exhibitors. Q. You refer to the paragraph permitting the Patents 4 Company to cancel the license of the exchange without cause on fourteen days' notice? A. Yes, sir. Q. And the other feature which they found objectionable was the $2.00 a week exhibitors' royalty? A. Well, it was not $2.00 then. It was more than that at that time. It was later changed to $2.00. Q. Did you with this committee see any of the manufacturers on that day? A. I did. Q. What manufacturers did you see? A. I saw Mr. Dyer, and Mr. Marvin and, I believe, Mr. Scull.