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 000327 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 #:
000327
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 II. Swanson, Direct Examination. 305 on the ground it is not responsive to any question 1 that has been asked. Q. When was this meeting of the twenty-eight? After you had returned from the second interview? A. Yes, sir. Q. What happened to the twenty-eight? A. They did not keep their word. That is, not all of them. Q. Then you returned shortly after that to Chicago, is that right? A. Yes. In the matter of a few days. Q. Mr. Swanson, did you attend any meeting at the Republican Club the night before the first meeting of the rental exchanges at their hotel, the Imperial? A. I slept ** at the Republican Club two nights preceding that meeting. Q. Did any manufacturers of motion picture film come around to you there and talk with you about the conditions in the moving picture business? A. They did. Q. Among others, who came to see you? A. Mr. Selig and Mr. Spoor, and Mr. Kleine. We all slept in the same room for two days and two nights. We stayed in the same room, rather. Q. Mr. Spoor is of the Essanay Company? A. Yes, sir. Q. And Mr. Selig of the Selig Polyscope Company? A. 8 Yes, sir. Q. And Mr. Kleine is Mr. George Kleine? A. Yes, sir. Q. Was anything said by any of these gentlemen as to the formation of the Patents Company and the proposed change in the manner of doing business? A. Yes, sir, there was. Q. State, to the best of your recollection, what was said? Mr. Caldwell: Objected to as incompetent, immaterial and irrelevant. A. Of course, it was about the only matter that was discussed during the two days that we were in that room. Q. You knew at that time that the two factions had gotten together, and that the Patents Company had been organized some weeks earlier? A. Yes, I knew it, for the reason that I had been furnished with a typewritten copy three days before this Imperial Hotel meeting, by an outsider, who submitted it to me, and gave me the idea of