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 #:
000333
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. 311 been cancelled. He said lie was not at liberty to give' me any reason, in fact, he did not know except that they did not want to do any business with me any further, and I spent perhaps an hour or an hour and a half with Mr. MacDonald, and that was about the only response that I could get from Mr. MacDonald on the matter. Q. What effect upon your rental exchange business did this cancellation by the Patents Company have? A. In view of the fact that simultaneously with their notifying me by telegraph of my cancellation, they likewise notified all of my customers (having had a rule, as they did, that each exchange was compelled to give them a list of its customers supplied by them) and they likewise telegraphed my customers that I had been shut off from supply, and it finally had the effect of putting me out of business entirely. Q. Had you complied with the condition of the license agreement, and sent to the Patents Company a list of your customers? A. I had. Also, sent them all the |2.00 I collected. Q. Did you try to continue the rental exchange business for a while? A. I did, yes, sir. The difficulty of continuing at that time was the fear on the part of exhibitors. While I had a great many of them who were personal friends, they stated to me that they could not any longer do business with me — Mr. Willis (Interrupting) : I object to that as hearsay. A. (Continued) : Notwithstanding the fact of their friendship, because they were in fear of litigation with the Patents Company, and they could not afford a lawsuit just to patronize me. That it would be cheaper for them to pay their royalty and do business with the Patents Company. Mr. Caldwell: I move to strike out the entire statement of the witness on the ground that it is not responsive to any question that has been asked. Q. How soon after this did you give up your Chicago branch? A. In the Fall of 1911, if I am not mistaken. I think it was that day. Q. And your Omaha and St. Louis and Philadelphia