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 #:
000337
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 II. Swanson, Direct Examination. 315 meeting. We adjourned the Pittsburgh meeting to Chicago, and then met again at Buffalo, and later on in New York. Q. Do you recall any suits being brought against Kleine or any of Kleine's customers in the year 1908? A. I recall about 30, between 30 and 33 suits that were brought in Chicago against exhibitors that were using his goods, by representatives of the Edison interests. Mr. Caldwell: Objected to as hearsay. Q. State whether or not you had any conversation with Mr. Frank L. Dyer of the Edison Company, in connection with the bringing of those suits? A. I had a number of conversations with Mr. Dyer regarding that matter. Q. State to the best of your recollection what he said, and what you said, and what was done? A. At the first meeting with Mr. Dyer, I had in Chicago, regarding Mr. Kleine and the Independent Film, as we called them, I called his attention to the fact that Kleine had interested a man named Seaver of Chicago, and that they were very active, and that they had cut the price of service to something that we had never dreamed of doing. It seemed to be in the neighborhood of $15 per week, and they were making long contracts for a period of six months with exhibitors that would sign up with them at that price, notwithstanding the fact that we considered that a price that would ruin any business, and Mr. Dyer said then he thought he could find a way of preventing it, and stopping it. I asked him how, and he said that he would have Mithin — Mr. Caldwell (Interrupting) : Who? A. An attorney in Chicago, and who was then Western Secretary of the Film Service Association, assist him in bringing suits against these exhibitors. Mr. Mithin was never used for that purpose, but other attorneys, of whom I do not recollect the names, were used for the purpose of bringing suits against thirty or more exhibitors, some of which I attended in Court, and the purpose of Mr. Dyer, as he stated, was to bring a multiplicity of suits, and harrass them to such an extent that they would eventually quit using Mr. Kleine's goods or any other person's goods, or the Ass<>ciation, as it was called. Of course, the Association had noth