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 #:
00030
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.

1 048 William H. Swan son, Cross Examination. also trail themselves back into the Edison agreements, and therefore I would like to supplement that answer this morning. Not only did I endeavor to live up to the contracts of the Patents Company, but it was very expensive to me and as well destructive to my business, in living up to the contracts with the Edison Company, inasmuch as on the first day when I returned to Chicago in order to meet the prices as outlined in that schedule, I had to reduce my business $1,700 a week. Mr. Caldwell: Now, Mr. Examiner, I object to this speech that the witness is making on the record, and I move to strike it out as a voluntary statement that is made by the witness in response to no question that has been asked him, and I would request the Examiner to stop this harangue on the part of the witness. By Mr. Willis: Q. With whom have you been talking with reference to these two answers that you have modified? To the counsel for the Government? A. I have not spoken to the counsel for the Government to-day at all. Q. At any other time, have you spoken to the counsel for the Government with reference to the answers which you have modified? A. No, sir. Q. What? A. No, sir. Q. Have you talked with anybody? A. I did Q. Who? A. Mr. Lewis, the gentleman sitting behind you. Q. The gentleman who nodded to you for the purpose of instructing you yesterday? A. The same, yes, sir. Q. Is he the only one that you have talked with with reference to the modifications of your answers? A. I believe that is all. Q. Did you talk with Mr. Darling? A. No, I have not spoken to Mr. Darling at all. In fact, I have not spoken to anyone since I have left this room except Mr. Lewis, and some gentleman I met downstairs, a stranger. Q. Mr. Lewis is the gentleman who has corrected you? A. No, sir, I told him that I had reconsidered my answer, and I told him I intended correcting it myself.