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 #:
000334
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.

312 William H. Swanson, Direct Examination. branches? What became of them? A. I had no Philadelphia branch. Q. What became of your Omaha and St. Louis branches and your Kansas City branch? You had a branch there, did you not? A. I had a branch there, yes, sir, but that Mr. Dyer compelled me to close before the license agreement at all was considered. Mr. Dyer ordered me to close the Kansas City, by means of a letter, owing to the fact, as he stated, that I had not bought the necessary quantity of films. I thereupon sent Mr. Dyer all of the receipted bills of the amount of film required according to the contract, and he wrote back and said — Mr. Scull wrote back and said that notwithstanding that I had sent these bills, that they herewith enclosed them. It did not make any difference whether I bought that amount or not. Close it up anyway. Q. Was that after the Patents Company was formed? A. No, that was prior to the Patents Company formation. Just a few months. Two or three months before that. Mr. Caldwell: That preceding question is objected to on the ground that it gives the contents of a letter which is not produced. The Witness: The letters were produced in testimony before the courts. That is the reason I cannot produce them. Mr. Grosvenor: We will make an effort to get it later. The Witness: The Omaha office I closed in 1910, as I could not make it pay at all. St. Louis I endeavored to combine with others, in order to continue the business, which we did, under what is known as the Swanson-Crawford Film Company, and I afterwards sold my interest in that. The New Orleans office I closed entirely. Q. What had been a profitable business, bringing you more than $100,000 a year prior to the cancellation of your license, dwindled to nothing? A. Practically so, yes, sir. Q. And had your business been a constantly growing business before the cancellation of the license? A. One