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 000343 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 #:
000343
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.

William II. Swanson, Direct Examination. 321 Q. Have you been engaged at any time in the business of manufacturing motion picture films? A. I have. Q. With what companies? A. The Rex Motion Picture Manufacturing Company, and now the Universal Film Manufacturing Company. Q. In what year did the Rex Company commence doing business? A. December, 1911. Q. And did you ever have any difficulty in getting raw film? A. Yes, sir, a great deal of it. WTe were never able until recently to get Eastman Kodak film. Q. Any reason stated for the refusal? A. The reasons that were stated — I cannot produce the letters in which the reasons were stated. Q. Where are the letters? A. I do not know. I have had to give this testimony in so many different things, that these various matters are scattered around among different attorneys. Q. State the reasons now, and we will try to get the letters later. Mr. Caldwell: The testimony is objected to, unless the letters are produced. A. Well, then, I can only broadly say, it was always understood among the trade that Eastman had refused to sell his raw products to any but the Motion Picture Patents Company or persons whom they authorized to buy it. In one instance, I know they refused to sell the United States Government any, the Bacteriological Committee in Denver. They had me write to Eastman for them, and tried to get it for them, and they could not get it. Q. You are referring now to the sensitized film which is run through the camera and receives impressions of the pictures? A. Both the negative and positive film, yes, sir. They were compelled to use foreign made material, and it caused a great loss through imperfection and wasting. Q. Back in 1908, and preceding years, were some of these different manufacturers of motion picture films duping? A. Yes, sir. Q. What do you mean by duping? Copying another man's film? A. Yes, sir. It is a process of utilizing a photograph originally made by the producers of the same, by contact