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 000545 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 #:
000545
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. 523 Q. There was one office that you discontinued? A. That was in Kansas City. Q. That is not one of these four? A. No, sir. Q. Now, let us get to the New Orleans office. You disposed of that, didn't you? A. No. I locked the door and walked away from it. Q. Why did you do that, and when? A. I don't recall. I gave the key of the office and the contents to Mr. Fichtenberg of New Orleans. I don't recall the time. Q. Was that before January, 1909, or afterwards? A. I don't remember. Q. As I understand, you testified in the Chicago Film case — Mr. Willis (Turning to Mr. Grosvenor) : I am now alluding, Mr. Grosvenor, from page 121, to his answer in answer to the 216th cross question — I will read the question and answer: "Just give the date, January, 1909. A. 1909. The New Orleans office, the man that I had in charge of that office, locked it up and ran away with everything in it, some time in the Summer of 1908. I afterwards sold the desk and typewriting machines, and so forth, to Mr. Fichtenberg, of New Orleans." By Mr. Willis: Q. Is that correct? A. Yes, sir, except that the sale was a gift. It was referred to as a sale to make his possession legal. I do not recall ever getting anything from Mr. Fichtenberg. Q. You stated here that this sale was made in the Summer of 1908. That is correct, isn't it? A. If I stated so there, it very likely is. Q. Mr. Witness, I wish you to read the answer to the 216th cross question at the bottom of the page. That is all I am asking you to read. The Witness : That statement is very likely correct. I believe it to be correct. By Mr. Willis: Q. You swore to it, didn't you? A. T did there, I presume, yes, sir.