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 #:
000325
Language:
English
Collection:
Early Cinema and Government & Law
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 H. Swanson, Direct Examination. 303 initiating any of the agreements except for cause? Do you 1 recall whether anything was said about that? Mr. Caldwell: Objected to as incompetent, immaterial and irrelevant. A. He stated that so far as that paragraph was con cerned, they had not any intention of changing it in a single iota, as it was absolutely necessary that they should have positive control of the exchanges that they were selling to, in that respect, meaning cancellation control, but that he would assure us on his word that so long as 2 there were no violations of the contract, that it would remain in existence during the life of the patents held by the Motion Picture Patents Company. Q. When you went back and reported to the exchanges, what was done, what action was taken? A. They demanded that another committee be appointed to wait on the Patents Company representatives the following day for the same purpose, to see if by perseverance, the matter could not be adjusted. Q. Was the appointment of that committee unanimous? A. Yes, sir, the appointing of the committee was done by ** the chair. Q. There was not any objection to that? A. None whatever. Q. And had there been any objection to the appointment of the earlier committee? A. No, sir. Q. The action was unanimous? A. Yes, sir. Q. Who comprised this second committee? A. Mr. Swanson, Mr. Laemmle and Mr. Clark of Pittsburgh. Mr. Aiken of Chicago. I do not recall the fifth man. Q. Did you see the manufacturers the next day in accordance with your instructions? A. I saw Mr. Dyer only, and Mr. Scull. Q. State to the best of your recollection, what was said? A. Mr. Dyer stated that there was not any use of our wasting any more of our time in that respect — Mr. Caldwell (Interrupting) : The question is objected to on the same grounds as I have stated. A. (Continuing) : That they had fully determined that