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 #:
000331
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.

William H. Swanson, Direct Examination. 309 manufacturers, and selling agents of film manufacturers, and projecting machines and film exchanges. Q. Was there any discussion at the meeting in regard to the new license exchange agreements? A. Yes, sir. Q. What provision in the agreement was particularly discussed? A. The matter of the two weeks' cancellation clause, as regards the film exchanges, was the first matter discussed, but that was deemed not altogether of importance at that meeting. At that time, the purpose of the meeting was the discussion particularly of the royally on projecting machines which dealers did not seem to think just, and wanted to have removed either by refusing to further patronize the Patents Company in that connection, or by persuasion, if it was possible. Q. Did you make a speech on that subject? A. I did, yes, sir. Q. Opposing the imposition of this royalty on the exhibitors or in favor of it? A. Opposing it. I was elected chairman of that meeting, and was called upon the floor to present the purposes of the meeting, in view of the fact that the representatives from the Patents Company were there, that the matter be outlined fully, and as dispassionately as possible. It was taken up and they were perfectly willing to express a vote on the question. Q. Did any of these licensed manufacturers or any of their representatives speak on the same subject after you had spoken? A. Instead of endeavoring to answer the proposition as set forth in the speech that I made regarding the matter, they adopted the theory of ridiculing it, and just simply tried to laugh it off, and it resolved itself into a passage of personal remarks which finally broke up the meeting. Q. What manufacturers, if any, spoke on the subject? A. Mr. Kleine made quite a long address, presented his contracts as they questioned as to his right to enter into an agreement with the Patents Company — he presented his contracts with Gaumont, and Urban, and upon request from myself that he read them instead of just flashing them under our eyes, he refused to do so, and put them back in the safe, and also entered into personal vilifying of myself and others. Mr. Selig made no comment except of a personal character. Q. Do you know whether or not any of the licensed manufacturers went from Chicago to New York the next day? A. Mr. Spoor and Mr. Selig and Mr. Kleine left Chicago and