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 000364 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 #:
000364
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.

312 William H. Swanson, Direct Examination. there were a number of agreements entered into in the year 1909 or 1908, all agreements with Gaumont, or Gaumont's representatives? A. Yes, sir. Mr. Grosvenor: I am through with your examination for the present Mr. Pelzer, and I ask that any cross examination of the witness (Mr. Pelzer) be deferred until the statements are presented whicli he has been requested to prepare. Thereupon WILLIAM II. SWANSON resumed the stand for further examination. Direct examination (continued) by Mr. Grosvenor: Q. Mr. Swanson, George Kleine, in the year 1908, was importing a large number of foreign films, is not that correct? A. I purchased a great variety of foreign films from him. Q. What foreign manufacture of films did you purchase from Kleine in the year 1908, what names can you remember? A. It is quite difficult for me to say what names particularly: I should say Cricks & Martin; Warwick; Gaumont; Pathe Freres and Theophelo, Pathe, Urban, and quite a number of others. I recollect that at that particular time frequently foreign manufacturers did not have any identification on their film, and it would be difficult to say who made them. Q. That is Gaumont made it for several manufacturers? A. I would not say as to that; but it was not altogether customary at that time for manufacturers to put out film with any particular marking on the film ; it is just in recent years that I recall that such tilings as sub-titles and announcement titles have been put on any films. Q. After the Patents Company was formed, did Kleine continue to import these different kinds of films, or only from some of the foreign makers? A. After the Patents Company was formed he only advertised and sold, so far as I know, the Urban Eclipse and the Gaumont film, but afterwards dropped the Gaumont, or they dropped him, I don't know which; and he took on what is termed Cines, making three releases a week — not more than three releases a week of combined brands that he handled.