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)

Page scan 000342 from 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 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 #:
000342
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:
September 12, 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.

320 William HL Swanson, Direct Examination. less litigation over this thing, and perhaps always would be, but that the success of the entire matter depended upon the commercial organization. Q. State whether or not anything was said about using the license agreements under patents, as the method of forming the combination? Do you recall anything about that? Mr. Caldwell: That question is objected to. Of course, my understanding is, that this stipulation relating to objections to the testimony, applies to all conversations upon which you have interrogated the witness, and are about to interrogate him? Mr. Grosvenor: I am willing to concede it as you understand it. Mr. Caldwell: All right. The stenographer repeats the question. A. Yes, sir. Q. What was said? A. I came here as a committee of one representing all of the Edison film exchanges in Chicago. Q. You came here to New York, you mean? A. Yes. And for the purpose of seeing Mr. Dyer; we in Chicago having faith in their estimated authority under their patents. I arrived on Saturday. I do not recall the date. I called up Mr. Dyer at Orange, New Jersey, in an effort to make an appointment with him to discuss conditions under those patents, which we purposed to make to him. He said he was going hunting, and he would not be back until Monday. He wanted to know if I would not remain until then, and I said no, but I would submit the proposition to him over the telephone. I said, "We in Chicago have decided that we will combine our business, and make the Edison Company a present of one-half of all our interests, in all our combined businesses, if they can show us where they can shut out the independent competition we are now having in Chicago." He said that was a great idea, he had not thought of it, but he would work it out as soon as he came back from his hunting trip, and he thought very likely it would be accomplished, and it later was, except that they bought the exchanges out altogether.