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 #:
000335
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. 313 year the business jumped from $90 a week total receipts to over $19,000 a week. Q. Your business, then, had been continually growing prior to this cancellation? A. I say, it had grown from $90 gross to nearly $20,000 a week gross in one year. Q. In one year? A. Yes, sir. Q. How about the other years? A. Each year just kept naturally, of course, increasing, but not at the same ratio. Q. Not in the same proportions? A. No. Q. Mr. Swanson, you were one of the rental exchange men who were instrumental in forming the Film Service Association, is that correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. Was the Film Service Association friendly to the Edison camp or to the Biograph camp? I mean by that, in the year 1908, were the members of the Film Service Association, those rental exchanges, were they in large part obtaining their supplies from the Edison licensees, or from the Biograph Company and Kleine? A. Well, if any member of the Film Service Association had bought film from Kleine or the American Mutoscope and Biograph Company at that period, they would have been dismissed from membership in the Film Service Association. Then the Film Service Association was an ally of the Edison licensees; could not handle any of the goods but theirs. Q. That was so provided in the agreement? A. Yes, not in the agreement but in the minutes of the Association. Mr. Caldwell: Objected to as incompetent, the minutes of the Association not having been produced. The Witness: And I might say, to correct that impression in the answer, that the purpose of the Film Service Association was primarily simply to comprise the parties working under the Edison license. Mr. Caldwell: I move to strike that statement out as a mere voluntary statement on the part of the witness, and not in response to any question. Q. Who got up the Film Service Association? A. There was a call made for a meeting to be held, at the