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 #:
00034
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.

652 William H. Swanson, Cross Examination. panies. The Universal was a consolidation by purchase, wasn't it? The Witness: It was a consolidation by purchase, yes, sir. By Mr. Willis : Q. What companies did it absorb, or consolidate with, was my question. You have named a number of companies. Some five. I ask you whether they were corporations? Those constituent part that you have named, going into the Universal Film Company were corporations? A. Horsley and Powers were not corporations. The others were corporations. Q. Where was the Independent Company incorporated? A. In New York. Q. Where was the Rex Company incorporated? A. New York. Q. The Champion Company? A. It was either a New York or a New Jersey corporation. I am not positive. They were located in New Jersey. Perhaps they may have been incorporated there. Q. Where was Horsley doing business? A. In Bayonne, New Jersey, and in California. Q. What? A. And California. Q. Well, where was Powers Picture Play Company doing business? A. New York City. Q. Well, now, each of those constituent parts, each of those five constituent parts was considered independent business ? A. Yes, sir. Q. What was the character of their business? A. Manufacturing of moving pictures. Q. What? A. Manufacturers of moving pictures. Q. I don't know that I understand you. Were they merely exhibitors? A. No, sir. They manufactured film. Q. Manufactured film? A. They did not manufacture film, no, sir, they manufactured moving pictures. Q. Well, how do they manufacture them? A. They photographed, by means of a camera, onto a sensitized surface of a piece of celluloid. , Q. Where did you get the film to do that with? A. They bought it from various film manufacturers. Q. From Edison? A. Certainly not. Eastman.