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 000500 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 #:
000500
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.

478 William H. Swanson, Direct Examination. him any list which was considered of value to an exchange, and he then pulled his coat off, and rolled up his sleeves, and said that he was a fresh college graduate and a football player, and gave me an illustration of his muscular development, of his arms, and stated that there was nobody any larger in the business than the Patents Company, and that if they had any degree of size that they would be the first to be knocked on the head, and he said he had a damned good idea that I would be the first fellow knocked on the head, and with that I ordered him out of the office. I met him at the College Inn, the following night, in the presence of Mr. George Kleine. I told him I thought he was a very energetic and a hustling young man, and if he would come and work for me I would give him a salary of $25,000 a year, and he asked Mr. Kleine if he thought 1 would fulfill that sort of an agreement, and Mr. Kleine said he thought I would, and he left me with the understanding that he was to think the matter over, and that is the last I have seen of Mr. Church. Q. Mr. Swanson, you went out, I understand, of the rental exchange business in Chicago, after your trouble with the Patents Companp? A. Not alone in Chicago, but in St. Louis, Omaha, Kansas City and New Orleans as well. Q. And then did you go to Denver? A. Yes, sir. Q. And establish a rental exchange there? A Yes, sir. Q Have you been engaged in the manufacture of film within the last few years? A Yes, sir. Q. And what was the name of your company? A. The first company I established was a partnership known as the Defender Company; that was in existence for a few months, and they incorporated, and it was known as the Rex Motion Picture Manufacturing Company. That company was recently sold to the Universal Film Manufacturing Company. Q. Are you an officer of the Universal Film Manufacturing Company? A. The Secretary. Q. Secretary of that company? A. Yes, sir. Q. You are one of the stockholders of the company? A. Yes, sir.