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 #:
00036
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.

654 William H. Swanson, Cross Examination. 1 nected with them, hadn't you? A. I was President of that company. (2 What sort of a business was that doing? A. We sold about 60 on the two reels a week. After making a second release. We sold 50 when we only made one. When we sold two it was cut down to 60. Q. How about the Champion? A. Poor old Champion! He was lucky to sell any. (J. You took him in, though, didn't you? A. Well, that was more out of sympathy than anything else. Q. That is another phase of it. How about Daniel Hors 2 ley? Mr. Grosvenor : Are you talking now about reels of 1,000 feet? The Witness : Yes. By Mr. Willis: Q. How about Daniel Horsley? A. David Horsley? Q. David Horsley? A. He sold in the neighborhood of about 80, on three reels of a thousand feet each, per week. Q. You had been President of the Rex Motion Picture Company, hadn't you? A. Yes, sir. I am yet. Q. Is that company still in existence? A. It retained its corporate existence for the reason that there has been suit brought against us, and we cannot dissolve until the suit is cleared away, which I understand has been cleared away. Q. By whom? A. A suit brought by whom? Q. Yes. A. A concern known as the Majestic Motion Picture Company sued the Motion Picture Sales Company, and its affiliations of various manufacturers, and the individuals connected with the separate corporations as well. Q. The plaintiff in that suit is another independent picture company, isn't it? A. Yes, sir. Q. How many independent picture companies are there? A. It is inestimable. I don't know. Q. What? A. It is hard to say. I have not any conception. Q. How many do you know of? A. I don't really know. Twenty-five or thirty. I cannot give you a definite number.