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 #:
000332
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.

310 William H. Swanson, Direct Examination. reported that they had come to New York the following day after that meeting. Q. The day after that, namely, two days after this meeting at Kleine's office, state whether or not yon received any notice from the Patents Company. A. I received a telegram signed "J. J. Kennedy, Treasurer," that my license had been cancelled, although I never had any license. Q. Did you thereafter receive film from the different licensed manufacturers? A. Outside of one or two occasions, I did not. They did not live up to their two weeks' cancellation agreement, even. They stopped my supply immediately. Q. Did any of them complain that you had violated in any respects any of the terms or conditions of that licensed exchange agreement? A. None whatever, except a letter from the Biograph Company, demanding payment for what I owed them. A matter of $200 or $300. Q. How many years had you done business with these different manufacturers, some or all of them? A. Ten years. Or about that. Not on so extensive a scale, of course. In one way or another, I had been purchasing their goods for ten years. Q. Your business had grown very much in the last few years preceding 1909? A. Yes, sir. Very rapidly. Q. Did you go to New York to see any of the Patents Company people in connection with the cancellation of your license? A. I left Chicago the day following the receipt of the above metioned telegram, to come to New York. I proceeded to the Motion Picture Patents Company's office, No. 80 Fifth Avenue, and there met Mr. MacDonald, and discussed the matter of the cancellation with him. Q. Did you have any trouble getting in when you gave your name? A. A little bit, yes. Q. Who did you see eventually? A. Mr. MacDonald came out and escorted me into his office; from the outer office, to Ids inner office. Q. Mr. MacDonald was the General Manager of the Patents Company at that time? A. He was the General Manager at that time. Q. State what was said at that interview with Mr. MacDonald? A. T stated to Mr. MacDonald that T had been notified that T would no longer receive the supply of licensed film, and T had been notified to that effect by telegraph and 1 wauted to know the reason why. That all of my offices had