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)

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 #:
000499
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:
May 23, 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 H. Swanson, Direct Examination. 477 all since went out of business. Others have gone out of business that had their licenses cancelled, as well, since then. Q. Do you know a man named Durant Church? A. I have seen him, met him, yes. sir. Q, Did you ever at any time have any dealings with him in connection with any of the provisions of the license agreement adopted by the Patents Company? A. Yes, I did. Q. Please state when, and where, and the conversation, to the best of your recollection. Mr. Caldwell : The question is objected to as calling for a conversation with a third person not authorized to bind these defendants. Q. Confine yourself to these matters which I have asked you about, namely, the license agreement? A. Yes. Either in the latter part of January, or the beginning of February, 1909, I received a telephone call from a gentleman saying that his name was Mr. Church. Q. And where was it? A. This was in Chicago — who purported to be telephoning from the Sherman House. He said his name was Mr. Church, and that he was representing the Patents Company, and that he came to Chicago for the purpose of demanding a list of names of customers who were being furnished by the various exchanges licensed film, and demanded that I fill out that list and bring it over to him at the hotel. I told him that I was very busy; that it was not but a block and a half from the hotel to my office, and if he wanted the list to come over and get it; otherwise, I would not have time to take it over to him. He did not come over at that time, but the following evening I met Mr. Spoor at the hotel, and he commented on the fact that I had this conversation with Mr. Church and requested me to go up there and receive an introduction in the hotel, which I did. Mr. Church then went with me over to my office, and we had a conversation there relative to what he wanted ; and I stated that inasmuch as I had not received a license from the Patents Company, that I did not think I was obligated to give 2