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 2
Leaf #:
00029
Language:
English
Collection:
Early Cinema and Government & Law
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:
June 13, 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. 647 Volume II. 1 WILLIAM H. SWANSON, resumes the stand for further cross examination. Cross examination (continued) : The Witness: Mr. Examiner, I would like to withdraw an answer that I made to a question yesterday, voluntarily withdraw it. The Examiner: You have a right to make any 2 statement in reference to your testimony at any time you see fit. The Witness : Thank you. At the time I gave the answer, it was under stress of circumstances, and I did not realize at the time what effect it might have, or the position it would place me in as an interested or disinterested witness in this case or any future association. Mr. Willis asked me yesterday if I was unfriendly to the gentlemen of the Patents Company or the General Film Company, and I said I refused to " answer. I say, I did not realize what interpretation that might have. I now say that for quite a number of years prior to the formation of the Patents Company, I esteemed nearly all of the members of them as friends, and with the exception of those who are now in those two companies with whom I have not become very well acquainted, I have still a very kindly and friendly feeling, and I am not interested in this case at all in the sense of a business rival. I would like to have that understood, and have my position understood in making my answer of 4 yesterday. And I would like to supplement another answer that I gave Mr. Willis this morning, when he asked if I fulfilled the conditions of the contracts of the Patents Company, inasmuch as at all times having in mind organizations that dove-tailed into the Patents Company, my testimony at times is with the idea, in my mind, at any rate, of not only the Patents Company's conditions and contracts, but tliev