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 000510 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 #:
000510
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.

488 William H. Swanson, Cross Examination. have in mind was in Chicago, on Randolph Street, No. 98 Randolph Street. Q. Who was the president of it? A. I don't think it was a corporation; it was just a little bit of a small shop, nof ns large as this room. Q. Did you have any interest in it? x\. None whatever. Q. I understood you to say that the machine you bought from the Yiascope Company, you didn't sell, but ttiat you broke it up and threw it on the scrap pile? A. Sold it to the junk dealer, yes, sir. Q. It was not any good? A. No, sir, it was their first experiment. Q. What was the matter with it, do you know? A. It was simply faulty workmanship. They had no machinery to amount to anything except a drill press and a lathe, and it was mostly made by hand. Projecting machines require very great accuracy, and it necessarily could not have that accuracy, and for that reason it was not practical. Q. Mr. Swanson, you testified in the case of the Motion Picture Patents Company against Chicago Film Exchange, didn't you? A. Yes, sir; in Chicago? Q. Yes. A. Yes, sir. Q. I am now going to ask you the same questions that were asked you in that case and read your answers to the questions, and ask you whether or not they are true? A. Yes. Q. I refer now to cross question 285 — Mr. Grosvenor (Interrupting) : Is it at page 129? Mr. Willis: I really have not got it that way. It is cross examination. Mr. Grosvenor: Yes, cross question 285. By Mr. Willis: Q. Cross question 285 — this is the question, I am quoting (reading) : "Are you using, or have you in possession any machine made by the Viascope Manufacturing Company? A. Which? XQ28C). Viascope Manufacturing Company? A. No, I never sold one, never owned one, never had one, and would not rent film to one of them?" A. I recall making that answer. Q. Well, now, I understood you to-day to say that you