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 000328 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 #:
000328
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.

306 William Hj. Swanson, Direct Examination. the thing. I knew it before any one else did, in the exchange business, other than the manufacturers who were in the exchange business. The conversation in the room — Mr. Selig, Mr. Kleine and Mr. Spoor endeavored to show me what a great benefit it would be to themselves to have this thing go through, as they had outlined it, or as it had been outlined. Q. In what way did they point out the benefits? A. The License Company formation and the contract as proposed. Q. In what way would it benefit them? A. It would benefit them in having control of the business, and shut out competition. Mr. Caldwell: It is understood that my objection applies to this entire conversation. Mr. Grosvenor: I have said so several times. Mr. Caldwell: Not with respect to this conversation. You had in mind another conversation. Mr. Grosvenor: If you will keep your objection in mind, and not interrupt the witness — Mr. Caldwell (Interrupting) : I do not mean to interrupt the witness. I think the time to make the objection is when the question is asked. Mr. Grosvenor: It is understood that Mr. Caldwell's objection, incompetent, immaterial and irrelevant, can be put in whenever he likes, at a later time. (To the stenographer.) Now, will you kindly read that answer as far as it has gone, and let the witness hear it? The stenographer thereupon repeats the answer. A. I told the gentleman there that I had already in my possession a copy of the proposed contract with the exchanges, and I also had a copy of another contract that they proposed putting out relative to projecting machines. This second contract never had been put out by the Patents Company, and they said if I was their friend, which I had presumably been for years, that I would work with them to help them put it over, as they thought well of the scheme, and it would unquestionably make them all rich, and would perhaps be personally beneficial to me, but they requested one particular favor, that T would make no speech regarding the