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 #:
000340
Language:
English
Collection:
Early Cinema and Government & Law
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.

318 William H. Swanson, Direct Examination. ence, that they were framing up a proposition that would settle all difficulties in the matter of independent competition and litigation among the various film manufacturers, and that they would have things shaped up so that the parties to this arrangement would have absolute control of the moving picture business. He advised me, as he had always been my friend, in his patronizing way, that he would see that I was a participant in them. Q. Did any other manufacturers, prior to this meeting in January, 1909, say anything, or give any intimation about the formation of the consolidation of interests? A. I had a criminal action pending against a party in Chicago, who was also in the moving picture business, and Mr. Selig and Mr. Spoor and Mr. Kleine waited on me in my office on two different occasions, in an effort to try to persuade me to quit prosecuting this party, and stated at that time that they did not want any action or publicity of that nature, owing to the fact that they intended bringing about a condition in the very near future, that would elevate the business considerably, and that if I insisted on prosecuting, that it would act as a deterrent against me when matters of membership in this new proposition were to be considered. I refused to drop this prosecution, however, and after that time, they did not discuss matters openly with me. But that was the nearest reference that I know of as to the formation of the Patents Company up to the announcement of it. Q. Going back to the time of the formation of the Film Service Association in the latter part of 1907 or the beginning of 1908, did you have any conversations with Mr. Blackton, or any of the other manufacturers as to the need of an association like the Film Service Association, and if so, please state what was said? A. Shortly after the meeting together on the morning of the day the association was first considered in Pittsburgh, we gathered promiscuously in a room in the hotel, and I was then made a temporary chairman, and Mr. MacDonald was made secretary, and a gentleman from Cleveland was made treasurer — temporary officers, all of them — and a man named Strong of Detroit was made, I think it was, vice-president. We discussed the purposes of getting together for two or three hours, and myself and this little gentleman from Cleveland—I cannot recall his name — and Mr. MacDonald, went upstairs to visit the manufacturers who had