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 000511 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 #:
000511
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.

William H. Swanson, Cross Examination. 489 bought one and chucked it on the junk pile? A. Well, if you will let me explain, the way I happened to buy it — it was sent over to me as a sample on consignment, and Mr. Rose and Mr. Crosby, who were two young fellows who had formerly worked for Mr. Selig in his shop, started this little plaid, and asked me to put it on the floor and exhibit it to prospective purchasers, and it was left there with that understanding in mind, and afterwards they came around — they didn't make any money, and they came around and borrowed fifty cents, and a dollar, and two dollars, at a time, to live with, and finally it ran up to about thirty dollars all told, I guess, and they stated that I might keep the machine for the repayment of that money, as they could not afford to pay it, because they didn't have it. Q. And that is the way you bought it? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, you further testified in that case, and I refer to cross question No. 287, "Why wouldn't you rent film to one of the Via scope machines, or the owners of one of the Viascope machines? A. Principally that the construction is such that it is very destructive on the film. For that reason, I do not care for their business." A. That was perfectly right. I have already explained that, owing to the fact that it was pretty much hand-made, the construction was crude, and it would destroy film more rapidly than any other machine. However, all machines will do that. Q. But that was the reason you would not sell them film? A. That was the reason, yes, sir. It was because the machine was particularly badly built. Mr. Spoor used to have the same identical sign up in his oifice in Chicago that he would not rent to any one who used a Polyscope. He had a sign in his office for years : "Beware of the deadly Polyscope." Mr. Willis: I object to this voluntary statement of the witness. I do not know what effect it has, but he has not been asked for it. By Mr. Willis: Q. Mr. Swanson, in October of 1911, you were sued by Thomas A. Edison, Incorporated, in the United Slates Court in Chicago, were you not? A. That I cannot answer, too. Q. Now, you ought to know whether you were sued or not. A. 1 was not. sued, nor was 1 served with a summons