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 #:
000323
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.

William EL Swanson, Direct Examination. 301 Q. Please state to the best of your recollection what you 1 said to them, and what they said to you? Mr. Caldwell: Objected to as incompetent, immaterial and irrelevant. A. I stated that, as an experienced exchange man, we thought it was unfair to tie us up with a contract that was so obviously one-sided, leaving the matter of cancellation entirely in their hands, and allowing the jeopardizing of our business solely to their judgment, and requested that they insert in that clause, that no contract would be cancelled unless for cause. Mr. Dyer replied to that, that there would not be a single word of any character changed in the contract. It would remain just as it was, and we could take it or leave it. I stated to him then that if the entire body objected to it, they would necessarily have to stop making film, and they would not buy their film, and lie said lie did not think we had nerve enough to do that. Q. Were there any manufacturers of film in the country at that time who had not joined the Patents Company? A. There was no source of film supply of any kind except the members of Motion Picture Patents Company. Q. What was said, if anything, about the weekly royalty for exhibitors? A. Mr. Dyer stated that the exchanges would be compelled to collect this royalty, and send it in to the Patents Company's offices, and that they considered reducing it from $3.00 or $4.00, whichever the amount is — I have forgotten at this time — to $2.00 a week. And I objected to that, and stated that inasmuch as I thought it amounted to over a million dollars a year, that as little trouble as they could go to would be doing their own collecting. We stood on (hat matter for over a half an hour, and argued the question, and 4 Mr. Dyer insisted along with Mr. Marvin that the exchange men collect the money for the Patents Company, and send it in to the Patents Company, but they did say, however, that they would consider the matter of doing their own collecting, and would give us the result of their opinion at a later date. Which they never did, however. Q. Were the exchanges opposed to the doing of the collecting for the Patents Company? A. On the ground that competition would in the very near future bring about the condition where the exchanges would be paying the royalty in