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 000513 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 #:
000513
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. 401 Q. Well, wasn't Mitchell making projecting machines? A. Not at the time that yon mention, of this injunction. No, sir. Q. WTell, what time was he doing it? A. T have not any idea as to what time he was doing it. Q. And what connection did you have with Mitchell in the making of the projecting machine? A. None. At no time. Q. As a matter of fact, weren't you and Mitchell, you in some representative capacity, making a projecting machine by assembling some of the parts and by making patterns and castings for other parts, and thus assembling a projecting machine, and selling it as an Edison machine? A. I had no connection whatever with it. Q. Well, that was being done, wasn't it, by somebody? A. I don't know. Q. Wasn't it being done by W. H. Swanson & Company? A. No, sir. Q. Sure? A. I said, no, sir. Q. You do know, as a matter of fact, that somebody was doing that, don't you? A. I have some slight knowledge as to the fact that it was being done, yes, sir. Q. And weren't those machines named "Edison" or "Edison Exhibition Model Style" or "Edison Projecting Kinescope?" A. I don't know what they were named. Q. What is the extent of your knowledge on this subject that it was being done? A. I had a machineshop, a little repair shop rather, that was used for repair work, and I had not any further use for it, and I rented it to Mr. Mitchell, and I happened in there two or three limes, and I presume from the work that I saw, that what they were doing, they were making that machine. I know they sold them to me, and I resold them. Q. Did you sell them as Edison machines? A. No, sir. Q. What did you sell them as? A. Edison style. Q. Ts that all the connection you had with Mitchell? A. That is all. Q. And this machine shop that you rented him, was right in the rear of your front premises? A. Yes, sir. He afterwards bought the shop and owned it himself, and then sold it, I think. The reason that injunction was paid no attention to, was because he had bought it and resold