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 #:
000338
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.

316 William H. Swanson, Direct Examination. ing to do with that particular line of goods. It was merely a misnomer. Those suits were brought for the purpose of intimidating exhibitors, as Mr. Dyer stated. Mr. Caldwell: The last statement is objected to, and I move to strike it out as not responsive, and is entirely hearsay. The Witness: Not hearsay. Mr. Dyer stated that to me. That was not hearsay. Mr. Caldwell: I move to strike out the last response of the witness. By Mr. Grosvenor: Q. Do you recall how the selection of exhibitors was made? That is, how it was determined that — A. (Interrupting) : Mr. Dyer stated that he wanted to find exhibitors who did not have too much money, but had some resources, and were responsible, and they would have more regard for the dangers of litigation than some irresponsible exhibitors, and had Mr. Mithin, as secretary, investigate the financial standing of exhibitors before suit was brought. Q. How many years had Mr. Kleine at that time been importing film? Are you able to state? Had it been for a number of years? A. Quite a number. I don't know the exact number of years. I had known him as an importer for a number of years. Q. And had the exhibitors in Chicago and other cities where you had been doing business, been exhibiting his films for all this period? A. Yes, sir. Q. These suits were all instituted in the year 1908, after Mr. Kleine left the Film Service Association? A. Yes, sir. Q. State whether Mr. Dyer said anything when you called his attention to the low prices at which Kleine was giving service? A. ne said something in answer to my suggestion. Q. State what it was, as far as you recall? A. I asked him if he did not think it was possible or feasible to eliminate that ruinous competition, and he said that he did not think that it was. I suggested that perhaps there might be the possibility of getting together with Mr. Kleine, and he agreed that that would be a very satisfactory matter if it could be arranged. I suggested that I would be very glad to act as an intermediary between him and Kleine for the purpose of