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 000519 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 #:
000519
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. 197 ient to spare the money, at various times. I was not in any particular hurry about settling with them. I did not have a friendly feeling towards them. Q. You have not now, have you? A. Well, it had better not be said, I guess. Q. Well, I have asked you the question? A. I refuse to answer it. Q. Do you know what percentage of profit, on the average, you made out of your business of film rental exchanges? A. The percentage of profit? No. Q. Well, was it a 100%, 50% or 25%? A. I have not any idea. Q. Was it 10%? A. I have no conception of what percentage it was. Q. In your agreements with the manufacturers licensed by the Edison Company in 1908, was there any provision calling for the purchase of a given amount of motion pictures each month by each exchange? A. There was. I do not recall whether it was so much each month or each week. My opinion is it was so many reels per week. Three reels per week. Q. From each one? A. Oh, no. Total. Total purchases of three reels a week. That was put in that license agreement by my own suggestion, to satisfy Mr. Berst, in order to get him to go in the proposition at all, for the reason that he was selling films to every film buyer in the United States, and they were making three reels a week, and to satisfy him that Iip would still hold that, we put a clause or condition in that contract that everybody must buy three reels a week. Q. Don't you know as a matter of fact that what you have staled was not in the agreement, but was one of the by-laws of the Film Association? A. Well, no, I don't know that to be a fact. I do not question it. Q. You prepared those by-laws, didn't you? A. I prepared a good many sets of by-laws. Q. I understood you to say, iu chief, thai you did prepare them, I may be wrong. A. I did, yes, sir. Q. Mr. Swanson, I observe by a bulletin issued under date of January 9th, 1909, of the Film Service Association, No. 39, and which purports to bear facsimile signatures of the President, Vice-President, Treasurer, yourself and two others, and the printed signature of D. MacDonald, Secre