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 #:
000518
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.

196 William H. Swanson, Cross Examination. the ground that I wanted to pay them in full, which I did. Q. Had you paid up to the licensed manufacturing companies, all that you owed them for films furnished you on January 1st, 1909? A. I am not going to answer that question, for the reason that you do not permit in the asking of the question, of explanations as to the conduct of the business and the customs of the business. Mr. Grosvenok: I would suggest that counsel chauge that to, "Had you paid all that was due them at the time?1' By Mr. Willis: Q. There was a license agreement which stipulated the manner in which you should pay for the films purchased from these manufacturers, was there not? A. There was a license agreement submitted at the Imperial Hotel in New York in January, 1909, that allowed the person whom it was presented to for signature, and agreement to, a period of something like five days, or a short period of time in which to make up their mind to sign it, and they would not alloAV sufficient time for a readjustment of the business. Changed the business customs and conditions; and, prior to that agreement, I had been paying manufacturers in lump sums up to as high as $20,000 at one time. And they readjusted this at a moment's notice, and said, "Go and get all this money and pay us when we lay those goods on your counter." It was a physical impossibility in my business, because I had previously, just prior to that time, invested $90,000 in construction work in buildings. Q. Now, Mr. Swanson, I am not speaking of the meeting of the 9th of January, I am speaking of the first of July, 1909. A. In answering your question, I take it, would place me in a false position, and in a false light, and I am trying to answer your question so as to lead up to the conditions that existed prior to that time, and why they were not fulfilled in the period of two or three* weeks thai these men demanded. It was a physical impossibility. Q. When did you settle up with them, all except Mr. Selig? A. I do not recall. Whenever I found it conven