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 #:
000326
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.

304 William H. Swanson, Direct Examination. they were going to have the contract put through just as it was, without any change, and he thought we ought to have enough confidence in them to rely on their fairness in their business dealings. He stated the contracts would be mailed in duplicate to the various exchanges at their different locations, and would be signed and returned, and such of them as were acceptable to the Patents Company — such of the parties as were acceptable to the Patents Company— the Patents Company would then sign and return one of the copies to the different exchange men. (J. Was anything said about putting that in writing in the form of a letter — A. (Interrupting) : Yes, I asked Mr. Dyer — Mr. Caldwell (Interrupting) : That question is objected to on the same grounds. A. (Continuing) : I asked Mr. Dyer if he objected to giving me that statement in the form of a letter that I could take back to the body, the Film Service Association body, setting forth the fact that any exchange company that signed the agreement need have no fear of cancellation for other than violations of the terms of the contract, and assuring the parties to the contract that their contract would not be cancelled during the life of their patents, except for the violation of same. He refused to give me that letter. Q. Did you then report back to the exchanges the result of your interview? A. Yes, sir, I did. Q. And after that, the different persons present scattered to their places of business? A. After taking that report back, there were twenty-seven exchanges, and myself, making twenty-eight, that met in one of the rooms of the hotel, the Imperial Hotel, and agreed among ourselves that these twenty-eight would draw out from the Patents Company if they would not make that concession, and that if they insisted upon it, and after the arrival of the contracts, it had not been changed, we would have a meeting at a future time and we twenty-eight would refuse to sign up with them. Mr. Caldwell: I move to strike out the answer