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 000329 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 #:
000329
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 11. Swanson, Direct Examination. 307 matter whatever at the opening of the meeting of the Film Service Association. I gave them the promise that I would not make any speech on the matter, and did not. Q. Was anything said about patents during this conversation at the Republican Club? A. They went over the ground, of course, that they had accumulated all the available patents on projecting machines, and on cameras and on films, that it was possible to get, and, that they had formed that into a holding company, to be known as the Motion Picture Patents Company; that they had made arrangements with the Eastman Kodak Company to get the exclusive use of the Eastman stock and that a competitor would have but very little chance entering the field, owing to the fact that they had all the patents on the various apparatus, and particularly the Eastman stock, the Eastman raw stock, you know. Q. By that, you refer to the film which is used by the manufacturers? A. Yes, sir, the raw undeveloped film. Urn exposed film. Q. State whether or not anything was said about the purpose of combining all of these patents? A. The purpose of combining the patents was for the purpose of stopping future ruinous litigation among themselves, and likewise for the purpose of controlling the business of making moving pictures and disposing of them. Q. Do you recall anything else that was said at the Republican Club during those two days? A. Nothing except that Mr. Selig said that they — that he would not take five million dollars for his business, where he had been willing to take a half million two months before that. Q. You have stated that you returned to Chicago a few days after this meeting at the Hotel Imperial. Did you sign the license agreements and send them in to the Patents Company? A. They sent in two copies for each office I had in Chicago. Sent them all to Chicago, and I signed them there. I sent them back to the Motion Picture Patents Company and never heard anything further from them. From the contracts. Q. Did you for several weeks receive film from them? A. Yes, sir, during the time of the signing of the contracts and the returning of them. Q. I am coining to that later. Mr. Swanson, during the years immediately preceding this time of which we are speak