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 000344 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 #:
000344
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.

322 William Hi. Swanson, Direct Examination. with unexposed positive, and making a negative of that, and then printing from that second negative. Q. Which companies were leading in the art of duping? I mean by that, doing the act the most frequently? A. Well, one of the most successful and accomplished dupers was Mr. Lubin, and the next to him was the Edison Company. Q. Did the Edison Company sell two grades of films? A. Class A and B. Q. With different prices? A. The class A was 12 cents a foot, and the class B was 10 cents a foot. Q. What did class B consist of? A. Class B of the Edison productions was made up of inexpensive productions, such as travel scenes and so forth, and principally dupes. Q. What other manufacturers were duping in those years? A. Well, Selig kept himself quite busy with it. Q. And others? A. The Biograph Company were duping, but they did so, I believe, with an understanding, and the paying of a royalty to the parties who originally made the film, and the consent of the original producers. Q. Did the larger per cent, of the manufacturers of projecting machines also take out licenses from the Patents Company? A. All of them who could get a license did, yes, sir. There were just three makes of projecting machines that I know of that did not get a license. Q. That did not get a license? A. Yes, sir. Q. Were those the leading manufacturers? A. No, sir. Q. Was there any change in the prices of projecting machines after the formation of the Patents Company? A. There was a very great change in prices. Q. Up or down? A. Upwards. Q. Please state what that variation in the price was, to the best of your recollection? A. Well, for instance, the Edison projecting machines were sold at $95. Immediately after the formation, it was sold for $155. The Selig Polyscope, before the formation of the Patents Company, sold for whatever they could get for it. They standardized their price at $150. The Power's machine sold about, I believe, $95, and it was later sold at $150, and without any additional improvements to any of the machines to amount to anything to justify the **ate. Then, there were other changes made to the machines, and the prices were raised to $225. Q. As a rental exchange, you had been dealing in projecting machines with the different manufacturers prior to the formation of the Patents Company? A. I did, yes, sir. I