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 000498 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 #:
000498
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.

470 William H. Swaxsox, Direct Examination. Q. Were you familiar with the names and the persons engaged in the rental business and in the manufacturing business in the motion picture art in the year 1909? A. Throughout the country? Q. Yes, generally? A. I had a personal acquaintance with nearly everybody in the business, yes, sir. Q. Now, state whether or not the exchanges and the exchange men, basing your answer on the information you obtained from the meetings you have testified you attended, state whether or not those rental exchange men were In favor of collecting the two dollars a week themselves for the Patents Company, or having the Patents Company do that collecting? A. They were vehement in their demand that the Patents Company do their own collecting. Q. Did you know of any of them at any time asking that they be allowed to do the work of collecting for the Patents Company? A. I never heard any such request as that. It was generally understood among the exchange men, and it was feared at that time, that if exchanges started to do the collecting of this royalty, the competition in the business being very keen, that it would only be a matter of a very short time until various competitors would be offering to pay the royalty for the exhibitor. Mr. Caldwell: The question and answer are objected to on the ground that it is hearsay. Q. State whether or not all the rental exchanges doing business in Chicago, in the year 1909, were licensed by the Patents Company? A. They were not. Q. Who were not that you recollect? A. That were not licensed? Q. Yes, that were not licensed? A. The Chicago Film Exchange, the Boyal Film Exchange, the Globe Film Exchange, and I am under the impression that the Shiller Film Exchange was not licensed. Q. Did any of those exchanges go out of business — A. (Interrupting) : They all went out of business. Q. (Continuing) : Shortly thereafter? A. They have